Citation Nr: 21008531 Decision Date: 02/17/21 Archive Date: 02/17/21 DOCKET NO. 14-10 918A DATE: February 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1982 to July 1985. This case comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). This appealed issue was previously before the Board in February 2018 and September 2019, when it was determined that a remand was necessary to obtain an adequate medical opinion. The Board’s prior remand directives and the subsequent actions of the AOJ will be discussed below. The Veteran’s appeal has been returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine is remanded. While further delay is regrettable, it is necessary in order to obtain an adequate medical opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability. The Veteran’s service treatment records reflect that he reported a muscle strain in early-1984. Additionally, the Veteran has asserted that later in January 1984, shortly after this muscle pull, he suffered another low back injury when he was knocked out of a Jeep and fell nine feet onto his back. Both the early January 1984 back pain and the late January 1984 fall are documented in the Veteran’s service treatment records. The Veteran has repeatedly stated his belief that his current back disability is the result of the orthopedic trauma incurred during the second of these low back injuries. The September 2019 Board remand asked for a medical examiner to address the Veteran’s lay statements regarding his lumbar spine disability in service, as the prior medical opinion was found to be improperly based on a lack of documented medical evidence. Pursuant to the remand instruction an addendum opinion was provided in December 2019. The December 2019 examiner acknowledged that the Veteran is considered competent to report symptoms and history and noted the Veteran’s statement regarding the fall from the Jeep. Although the examiner acknowledged the Veteran’s lay statements, the examiner only offered an opinion as to the etiology of the Veteran’s current disability as it relates to the early January 1984 back pain and did not offer an opinion related to the Veteran’s lay statements and the late January 1984 fall. In sum, the December 2019 addendum opinion does not adequately address the etiology of the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability. Therefore, the Veteran’s claim is remanded to obtain a more complete medical opinion. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Have an appropriate examiner review the claims file and provide an addendum opinion concerning the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s current lumbar spine disability. The claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the reviewing examiner, and the examiner should indicate in the addendum report that the claims file was reviewed. The examiner is asked to provide the following opinions: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability was caused by, incurred during, or is otherwise related to his active service. (b.) In providing this opinion the examiner must specifically address the etiology of the current lumbar spine disability related to (i) the early January 1984 back pain and (ii) the late January 1984 fall from a Jeep. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, as such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating the opinion(s). The examiner should provide a complete rationale for any opinions offered. If the examiner is unable to provide any requested opinion without resorting to speculation, he or she should explain why this is so and note what, if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be made. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. W. Morgan, 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.