Citation Nr: 21010523 Decision Date: 02/25/21 Archive Date: 02/25/21 DOCKET NO. 14-39 149 DATE: February 25, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the United States Marine Corps (USMC) from November 1965 to May 1986. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2011 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service Connection – Back Disability The Veteran has asserted that he has a back disability that had its onset during his active service. Service treatment records (STRs) show that the Veteran received treatment for back complaints numerous times during his period of service. Post-service treatment records show that the Veteran began to seek treatment for his back within a few years of his service separation, and that he underwent a discectomy approximately 6-7 years following his service separation. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in July 2011. At that time, the VA examiner diagnosed degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the thoracolumbar spine. X-rays of the thoracolumbar spine at that time also revealed arthritis. The examiner noted that an opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s back disability could not be provided without resorting to speculation. The Veteran was afforded another VA examination in August 2014. At that time, the examiner confirmed the diagnosis of lumbar spine DDD. The examiner opined that it was less likely as not that the Veteran’s back disability was incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. In so finding, the VA examiner noted the STRs did not show chronicity of continuity of back complaints, and post-service records were likewise absent for continuity of chronicity as there were no back complaints until 1993, several years following the Veteran’s service separation. The examiner also noted that the Veteran’s in-service diagnosis was strain, and DDD and degenerative joint disease (DJD) was ruled out by way of diagnostic imaging. The Board finds that the VA medical opinions of record are inadequate for adjudication purposes. In this regard, a general statement that an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to speculation, without additional reasoning as to why that is the case, is insufficient to constitute medical evidence against the claim. Further, the August 2014 VA examiner failed to adequately consider the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of his symptoms. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded a new VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any currently present back disability. Additionally, current treatment records should be identified and obtained before a decision is made in this case. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Identify and obtain any pertinent, outstanding VA and private treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an examiner with appropriate expertise to determine the nature and etiology of any currently present back disability. The claims files must be made available to, and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated tests and studies must be performed. Based on the examination results and review of the record the examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that any currently present back disability had its onset during the Veteran’s active service, or is otherwise etiologically related to such service. In forming the opinion, the examiner must address the multiple in-service complaints of back problems. Further, the examiner must consider the Veteran’s statements regarding the onset and continuity of his symptoms. A complete and detailed rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. Confirm that the VA examination report and medical opinions provided comport with this remand, and undertake any other development found to be warranted. (Continued on the next page)   4. Then, readjudicate the appeal. If the decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Andrew Ledman II 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.