Citation Nr: 21013471 Decision Date: 03/09/21 Archive Date: 03/09/21 DOCKET NO. 14-18 149 DATE: March 9, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from August 1969 to July 1973. He testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a March 2017 hearing. This matter is on appeal from a January 2012 rating decision. The case was remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) in December 2017 and then denied in a January 2020 decision. The Veteran thereafter appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an Order dated in October 2020, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) by the Veteran and VA General Counsel, which was incorporated by reference, to vacate the Board’s decision and remand the case for readjudication. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of service connection for a low back disorder because no VA examiner has provided an adequate opinion as to whether it is related to service. A January 2019 VA examiner provided a negative opinion; part of the rationale was that there were no medical records available to corroborate the Veteran's reports of continuous and ongoing back pain since service. As discussed in the JMR, such rationale is not adequate, as the examiner failed to consider the Veteran's competent reports of ongoing pain. Therefore, remand for a new medical opinion is necessary. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum medical opinion from the January 2019 VA back conditions examiner (or, if unavailable, from a medical professional with appropriate expertise) to determine the etiology of the diagnosed lower back disorder. The examiner is requested to review the record and offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of approximately 50 percent) that the diagnosed lower back disorder had its onset in service or is related to service. The examiner must consider the Veteran’s reports of ongoing pain since service. The examiner is reminded that the Veteran is competent to report having pain since service without corroborating evidence. The examiner is also reminded that the absence of “chronicity of care” is not a valid basis for a negative medical conclusion. A complete rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Barstow, 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.