Citation Nr: 21015278 Decision Date: 03/17/21 Archive Date: 03/17/21 DOCKET NO. 16-25 843 DATE: March 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the United States Army from November 1983 to July 1992 and performed active service in the United States Army Reserves from January 1996 to September 1996. These matters are before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2018 and June 2020, the Board remanded the claims for further evidentiary development. The Board remanded the claims again in October 2020 in order to obtain an addendum medical opinion. These matters have since returned to the Board for further appellate action.   1. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. In its October 2020 remand, the Board instructed the VA examiner to consider the Veteran’s competent lay statements about the circumstances of his service, to include running, physical training, rucking, extended standing, offloading trucks, and/or a motor vehicle accident. The Board also noted in its remand that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) was unable to locate the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs), save for a July 1983 enlistment examination. In January 2021, the physician who provided an opinion for VA in July 2020 reviewed the Veteran’s file and provided an addendum opinion that the Veteran’s back disability, right knee disability, and left knee disability were all less likely than not due to service because there was no evidence of knee or back injuries during service. However, after reviewing the examiner’s opinion, it appears that the rationale is a word-for-word recitation of his prior July 2020 opinion, which the Board found to be inadequate. The examiner failed to properly address the Veteran’s lay contentions about the circumstances of his service, to include the motor vehicle accident for which the Veteran provided evidence, as well as his descriptions of the onset and progression of his disabilities. Additionally, the examiner’s emphasis on a lack of evidence in the Veteran’s STRs is misplaced seeing as the AOJ was unable to locate the Veteran’s STRs. Thus, once again, the Board must remand these matters due to a lack of substantial compliance with the mandates of the October 2020 remand. A remand by the Board confers on the Veteran a legal right to substantial compliance with the remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). A failure by the Board to ensure that its remand orders are substantially complied with constitutes legal error. Id.   Accordingly, these matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion from a qualified clinician other than the clinician who provided opinions in July 2020 and January 2021 for an opinion on the nature and etiology of any back, left knee, and right knee disabilities. The clinician must opine on whether each of the claimed disabilities is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including running, physical training, rucking, extended standing, offloading trucks, and/or a motor vehicle accident. The examiner must consider the Veteran’s competent lay statements regarding the circumstances of his service, including regarding being in a motor vehicle accident during service, as shown in a February 1987 accident report, and any back or knee problems he reports having since that time. The examiner is also to note the AOJ was unable to locate the Veteran’s STRs except for his July 1983 entrance examination. Lack of evidence of in-service back or knee injuries alone is not sufficient for a negative nexus opinion. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. If the clinician cannot provide a requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the clinician must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. The clinician must indicate whether there was any further need for information or testing necessary to make a determination. Additionally,   the clinician must indicate whether any opinion could not be rendered due to limitations of knowledge in the medical community at large and not those of the particular examiner. M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Gabrielle Ongies, 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.