Citation Nr: 21014311 Decision Date: 03/11/21 Archive Date: 03/11/21 DOCKET NO. 16-11 191A DATE: March 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left leg disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to April 3, 2014 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from February 1967 to December 1969. 1. Lumbar spine, cervical spine, right shoulder, and left leg disorders In November 2018 and April 2020, the Board remanded this appeal for additional development and consideration. In the most recent remand directives, the Board requested that the Regional Office (RO) obtain addendum opinions to consider the November 2011 lay statements and the Veteran’s statement in support of his claim, also submitted in November 2011. Furthermore, the instructions requested that the VA examiner consider and discuss the November 2011 statement from the Veteran regarding his in-service injuries. The VA examiner was instructed to also consider and discuss the November 2011 lay statements regarding continuity of symptomatology for the diagnosed disorders. In the October 2020 addendum opinion, the examiner did not comment of the Veteran’s and additional lay statements from November 2011. Furthermore, although the examiner noted that the Veteran was lifted by a crane from a job site and that his x-rays are devoid of any evidence of bony bankart lesion or hills-sachs deformity, which would indicate prior dislocation, the Board finds this does not account for the statements provided in November 2011. The examiner acknowledged in cursory fashion but did not address the Veteran’s specific statements regarding a fall injuring his right shoulder, slinging heavy equipment, performing mine sweeps, ordinance disposal, disassembly of traps, cutting landing zones in the jungle, and perimeter fortification. Accordingly, the October 2020 VA addendum opinion did not fulfill the Board remand directives, and the issues must be remanded in order to fully comply with those directives as outlined in the April 2020 remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). In addition, the Board notes that the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a left leg disorder is separate from his left total knee replacement. In the November 2011 statement, the Veteran acknowledged that his left total knee replacement was not due to service. The claim on appeal is for the Veteran’s left leg disorder, to include radiculopathy of his left lower extremity. Therefore, the October 2020 addendum opinion is inadequate, as it provided an opinion for the Veteran’s left knee and not his left leg disorder. As such, a remand is warranted. 2. TDIU The Board notes that the issues of entitlement to a TDIU prior to April 3, 2014 still cannot be adjudicated until all the service connection issues are addresses as they are intertwined. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO must obtain an addendum opinion regarding the Veteran’s service connection claims. In-person examinations are not necessary unless the examiner determines it must be conducted to address the questions below. The examiner is asked to specifically address the following, with a rationale provided: (a.) Whether the Veteran’s currently diagnosed lumbar spine disorder is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include as due to the type of injuries he states he incurred during his service. (b.) Whether the Veteran’s currently diagnosed cervical spine disorder is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include as due to the type of injuries he states he incurred during his service. (c.) Whether the Veteran’s currently diagnosed right shoulder disorder is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include as due to the type of injuries he states he incurred during his service. (d.) Whether the Veteran’s currently diagnosed left lower extremity disorder, to include left lower extremity radiculopathy, is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include as due to the type of injuries he states he incurred during his service. If, and only if, the examiner related the lumbar spine disorder to service, the examiner then must provide additional opinions of: 1. Whether a left lower extremity disorder is at least as likely as not caused by the lumbar spine disorder. 2. Whether a left lower extremity disorder at least as likely as not aggravated by the lumbar spine disorder. The examiner must consider and discuss with specificity: 1. The November 2011 statement from the Veteran regarding his in-service injury, to include a fall injuring his right shoulder, slinging heavy equipment, performing mine sweeps, ordinance disposal, disassembly of traps, cutting landing zones in the jungle, and perimeter fortification. 2. The November 2011 statements from the lay witnesses regarding continuity of symptomatology for all diagnosed disorders. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Glaeser, 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.