Citation Nr: 21010740 Decision Date: 02/25/21 Archive Date: 02/25/21 DOCKET NO. 11-01 465 DATE: February 25, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for degenerative disc disease (DDD) and spondylosis, lumbar spine, (low back disability) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND Pursuant to a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) to vacate a January 2018 Board decision and remand, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) vacated the 2018 Board decision and remanded it to the Board for further review. See 03/12/2019 CAVC. Pursuant to the Court’s Order, the Board remanded the case to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to accomplish the action directed in the remand. See 09/10/2019 BVA Decision; 10/08/2020 Remand BVA. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) complied with the Board remand directive. The Board, however, is remanding this case again to ensure that the most recent medical opinion was based on an accurate factual premise. Entitlement to service connection for low back disability is remanded. The AOJ obtained a medical review of the claims file by a physician as directed in the remand. See 12/02/2020 C&P Exam. The examination report reflects that the clinician conducted a comprehensive review of the claims file and, based on that review, opined that it was not at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s currently diagnosed low back disability had onset during his active service or is otherwise causally connected to an in-service low back injury. Id. P. 2-3. The clinician’s thoroughness notwithstanding, the Board notes an incorrect statement of fact that must be addressed in order to ensure that the clinician’s report is adequate for appellate review purposes. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993); see also Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). The primary basis of all of the prior Board remands was that an appropriate medical professional address and assess the positive nexus opinion of the Veteran’s treating non-VA chiropractor made in 2010. The December 2020 examination report reflects that the clinician complied with that facet of the remand and noted disagreement with the chiropractor’s opinion. The stated rationale for the disagreement, however, was that the Veteran’s chiropractor based his opinion solely on the Veteran’s subjective reports of his history. See 12/02/2020 C&P Exam, P. 1. That is not a correct statement of fact, as the chiropractor noted in the July 2010 letter that the Veteran’s military service records had been provided to him, and that he had reviewed them. See 05/13/2011 Third Party Correspondence, 1st Entry. Hence, the clinician must address that discrepancy. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Send the claims file to the clinician who conducted the December 2020 medical nexus review. Direct the clinician’s attention to the July 2010 opinion of the Veteran’s treating chiropractor and inform the clinician that the chiropractor did not base his opinion solely on the Veteran’s subjective reports of his history, but he also noted a review of the Veteran’s military records which had been provided to him. Ask the clinician to provide an addendum wherein he addresses whether the fact that the Veteran’s chiropractor also based his opinion on a review of the Veteran’s military records changes his opinion that there is no nexus between the currently diagnosed low back disability and the Veteran’s in-service lifting injury. Please provide a full rationale for why it does or does not change the prior opinion the clinician rendered. Eric S. Leboff Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board W. T. Snyder 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.