Citation Nr: 21015774 Decision Date: 03/18/21 Archive Date: 03/18/21 DOCKET NO. 15-01 681 DATE: March 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability, to include as secondary to service-connected gouty arthritis and/or service-connected chip fracture residuals, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1961 to December 1977. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2012 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously before the Board in May 2018, when it was remanded for additional evidentiary development. In an October 2019 decision, the Board denied the claim. Thereafter, the Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an August 2020 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), the Secretary of VA and the Veteran (the parties) moved the Court to vacate the October 2019 decision as to the issue on appeal. The Court granted the JMPR in a September 2020 order and the matter is again before the Board for adjudication. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2019). 38 U.S.C. §§ 7107(a)(2) (2012) 1. Entitlement to service connection for lumbar spine disability, to include as secondary to service-connected gouty arthritis and/or service-connected chip fracture residuals, is remanded. The Veteran is seeking service connection for a back disability. Specifically, he contends that his low back disability is related to his service-connected gouty arthritis of the knees, ankles, and feet and/or service-connected chip fracture residuals of the right and left medial malleolus and hallux valgus and he is therefore entitled to service connection. See September 2019 Appellant’s Brief. As noted above, in a May 2018 decision, the Board remanded this claim for additional development. Specifically, the RO was instructed to obtain a VA opinion addressing whether the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability was caused by or aggravated by his service-connected gouty arthritis and/or chip fracture residuals. Pursuant to the remand instructions in April 2019, the RO obtained a VA opinion. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability is less likely than not due to service-connected disabilities. As indicated in the August 2020 JMPR, this opinion is not sufficient for adjudicative purposes because the examiner fails to provide an adequate rationale regarding whether the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities caused his lumbar spine disability. He also fails to address the question of whether the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability was aggravated by his service-connected disabilities. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); El-Amin v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 136, 140 (2013); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Accordingly, a remand for a new VA opinion is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the nature and etiology of Veteran’s lumbar spine disability. The record, to include a copy of this Remand, must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner, and the examination report should note that review. If an opinion cannot be obtained without an examination, then a VA examination should be afforded to the Veteran. The examiner should address whether the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability is at least as likely as not (1) caused by or (2) aggravated beyond its natural progression by: (a) his service-connected gouty arthritis of the knees, ankles, and feet; (b) and/or his service-connected chip fracture residuals of the right medial malleolus and hallux valgus; (c) and/or his service-connected status post left hallux valgus repair, calcaneal spur, and bunion. The examination report must include a complete rationale for all opinions provided. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinion(s) without resorting to speculation, the report should expressly indicate this, and the examiner should explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to speculation. (Continued on the next page)   2. After undertaking any additional development deemed necessary, the AOJ must readjudicate the claim on appeal. If any claim remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and afforded the requisite opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Kaufer, 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.