Citation Nr: 21014369 Decision Date: 03/12/21 Archive Date: 03/12/21 DOCKET NO. 16-39 317 DATE: March 12, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service with the U.S. Navy from June 1965 to June 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2015 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Denver, Colorado (RO). In February 2019, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in a videoconference hearing. A copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the record. The claim was previously before the Board in May 2019 and was remanded for evidentiary development and a VA examination. Unfortunately, the Board finds that another remand is necessary for further record development to comply with prior remand directives prior to rendering a decision on the appeal. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The Board notes that the Veteran supplied documentation after the most recent supplemental statement of the case related to his claim on appeal in October 2020, to include a private Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ). However, given the additional remand, the Board finds that the lack of RO consideration in the first instance is harmless error and is not prejudicial as the evidence will be considered in a subsequent supplemental statement of the case. Service connection for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. Within the May 2019 Board remand, the Board requested for the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 General Release for Medical Provider Information to the VA for Dr. D. Jones for any private chiropractic treatment. Thereafter, the Board requested for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability. On remand, in November 2019, the RO sent the Veteran a letter requesting VA Form 21-4142 in order to request private medical treatment records from Dr. D. Jones. Without receiving a response from the Veteran, the RO ordered a VA examination and medical opinion, which were obtained in January 2020. While the Veteran worked with the RO to obtain private medical records in June 2020 by sending in a VA Form 21-4142 regarding a proposal to reduce for a separate claim not before the Board, the Veteran did not send in a completed VA Form 21-4142 for the instant appeal until October 2020, after the June 2020 supplemental statement of the case and after the appeal was placed back onto the Board’s docket in October 2020. Within the October VA Form 21-4142, the Veteran authorized the release of medical documentation from Dr. D. Jones for treatment prior to October 2020. The Board finds that remand is necessary to obtain substantial compliance with the May 2019 Board remand directives. Namely, the Board finds that on remand, the RO should request medical records from Dr. D. Jones using the Veteran’s completed October 2020 VA Form 21-4142, and thereafter, obtain a VA addendum opinion if any such documentation is associated with the record. The Board reminds the Veteran that VA’s duty to assist is not a one-way street, and that the Veteran must be prepared to cooperate with VA’s efforts in developing his claims. See Olson v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 480 (1992). Additionally, the Board notes that the Veteran submitted an October 2020 private DBQ after the appeal was returned to the Board. Therefore, remand for a supplemental statement of the case is required where the Veteran did not also submit a waiver of RO review of such evidence. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. In utilizing the VA Form 21-4142 completed by the Veteran and associated with the record in October 2020, request medical record from Dr. D. Jones regarding all chiropractic treatment in relation to the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a lumbar spine disability. Two attempts must be made to obtain these records. All attempts to obtain these records should be documented in the claims file. If the records are determined to be unavailable, that should be noted in the record. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, notify the Veteran and allow her the opportunity to provide such records. 2. Upon competition of the above, and only if such private medical evidence has been associated with the record, the RO should obtain a VA addendum opinion to determine the nature and etiology of claimed lumbar spine disability. The record should be made available to the examiner for review in connection with this medical opinion. An examination is not required but the examiner may request one if necessary to render the requested opinions below. The examiner is requested to determine whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that currently diagnosed degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine: (a) was incurred in or caused by active service, to include as due to an in-service injury in February 1966; (b) manifested within one year after discharge from service; or (c) was chronic in service with continuous symptoms since service separation. The examiner is asked to consider the Veteran’s lay statements as to the continuity of symptomology of back pain since service separation. The examiner must provide a complete explanation for his or her opinions, based on his or her clinical experience, medical expertise, and established medical principles. If any of the above requested opinions cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner must state this and specifically explain whether there is any potentially available information that, if obtained, would allow for a non-speculative opinion to be provided. (Continued on the next page)   3. After all development has been completed, the AOJ should review the case again based on the additional evidence, to include all evidence associated with the record by the Veteran after the most recent supplemental statement of the case. If the benefits sought are not granted, the AOJ should furnish the Veteran and representative with a supplemental statement of the case, and should give the Veteran a reasonable opportunity to respond before returning the record to the Board for further review. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. R. Woodarek 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.