Citation Nr: 21007630 Decision Date: 02/10/21 Archive Date: 02/10/21 DOCKET NO. 17-32 255 DATE: February 10, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for a back disability, to include lumbar spine degenerative joint disease (DJD) and scoliosis is remanded. Service connection for right foot condition is remanded. Service connection for left foot condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1976 to November 1977. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in June 2020. A transcript is of record. In his July 2016 notice of disagreement (NOD), the Veteran also expressed disagreement with the effective date of an award and evaluation of disability for the claims noted above. However, as service connection was denied, no effective date or rating was assigned with which to disagree. The NOD is invalid in that respect. 1. Service connection for a back disability, to include lumbar spine DJD and scoliosis is remanded. The Veteran asserts his back disability is related to service. At the June 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran reported he had a couple of falls while rappelling in service, and that he started feeling pain on the second fall. The Veteran also stated that he had falls when humping hills. The Veteran stated he went to hospital for his back condition about 6 months after discharge from service. In a July 1977 service treatment record (STR), the Veteran complained of cramps in his back and legs. The clinical impression was muscle strain due to extensive exercise. In an August 1977 STR, the Veteran reported that he was assaulted by two marines while on fire watch around midnight. He reported he fell and hit his head, and lost consciousness for undetermined time. The clinician noted massive hematoma at the back of the head and a small laceration; the assessment was occipital concussion and hematoma. The Veteran’s November 1977 separation examination report shows his normal head, spine, and musculoskeletal system were all normal. The file contains a February 1980 enlistment examination report that was conducted for a civilian position with the Marine Corps; the Veteran’s head, spine, and musculoskeletal system were normal although a back scar was observed. In the February 1980 report of medical history, the Veteran denied swollen or painful joints, arthritis, or recurrent back pain. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in September 2017 in connection with this appeal. The examiner opined that this current back conditions were not related to service. Since that examination, the Veteran’s attorney has not explicitly challenged the examiner's competency, but she has requested the examiner’s curriculum vitae (CV) and has provided a private medical opinion (dated in September 2020 letter) from Dr. F.G. On remand, the CV of the September 2017 VA examiner and an addendum opinion that takes into consideration the findings and opinion of Dr. F.G. should be obtained. See Francway v. Wilkie, 940 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Fears v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 308, 317 (2019). 2. Service connection for right foot condition is remanded. 3. Service connection for left foot condition is remanded. The Veteran asserts his bilateral foot condition is due to his feet getting caught in between rocks and slipping, and due to humping hills in service. See June 2020 Board hearing transcript at 3-4. During the hearing, the Veteran stated that his bilateral foot conditions began about 8 months into grunt exercises. The Veteran stated his feet would get caught in between rocks and he would slip. He reported his toe bones got dislocated and the condition worsened while he was humping hills. The Veteran’s STRs do not indicate an injury to his toes or feet. A December 1976 STR noted a blister in left heel. A July 1977 STR noted a complaint of cramps in legs. At the November 1977 separation exam, his feet and lower extremities were found normal. In November 2020, VA received a letter from Dr. F.G. that was dated in September 2020. Dr. F.G. noted the Veteran’s reported history of in-service foot injury, and excerpts of STRs and post-service medical records; however, he did not provide an opinion as to whether the bilateral foot conditions were related to service. Instead, F.G. provided an ambiguous statement that read, “In reviewing veteran []’s issues an opinion of a more are less likely connection to military service will be submitted.” Based on review of the file, a VA examination would be helpful. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the Veteran’s attorney with a copy of the September 2017 VA examiner’s resume/CV and any other available information regarding his qualifications. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination(s) by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of his lumbar spine and bilateral foot conditions. The file, and a complete copy of the Remand, must be reviewed. The examiner should opine whether the Veteran’s claimed lumbar spine and bilateral foot conditions are at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. A complete rationale for the requested opinions should be provided. In doing so, the examiner is asked to review the prior VA nexus opinion for the lumbar spine and the private medical opinion (dated in September 2020 letter) from Dr. F.G. In providing the requested opinions, consider the Veteran’s description of his in-service injuries and symptoms as well as his post-service symptoms. If there is any medical reason to accept or reject the proposition that the Veteran’s reported injuries and symptoms in service and thereafter represented the onset of his current disability, this should be noted. Stated another way, do the Veteran’s reports about his symptoms align with how the currently diagnosed disability is known to develop or are the Veteran’s reports generally inconsistent with medical knowledge or implausible? D. JOHNSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Jake Choi, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.