Citation Nr: 21015878 Decision Date: 03/18/21 Archive Date: 03/18/21 DOCKET NO. 17-65 793 DATE: March 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably in the United States Navy from December 1966 to September 1970. This matter was previously before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) in April 2019, whereupon the Board denied service connection for a low back disorder. The Veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a July 2020 Memorandum Decision, the Court vacated the April 2019 Board decision and remanded the claim for further adjudication. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder. Specifically, he contends that he developed this disorder in service, to include as a result of back injuries documented in his service treatment records in May and July of 1968. As discussed in the Court’s Memorandum Decision, the record reflects that a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran a new VA examination and opinion regarding the etiology of his disorder. The Court’s Memorandum Decision indicates that the Board erred in its April 2019 decision by relying on an August 2018 VA examination report and accompanying opinion, which found that it was not at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s current low back disorder was related to his service. The Court determined that the August 2018 opinion was inadequate because it failed to meaningfully discuss the Veteran’s reports of continuing lower back pain since his in-service injury in 1968 (the examiner determined that the in-service injury was acute and had resolved but in doing so did not discuss the Veteran’s reports of continuous symptoms thereafter). Accordingly, the Court concluded that a “remand is required for the Board to obtain a new VA medical opinion that adequately addresses [the Veteran’s] credible lay statements of continuity of symptoms since service.” Thereafter, the Veteran’s attorney submitted a written request that the appeal be remanded to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for evidentiary development and readjudication. The Board will honor that request and remand the claim in order to provide the Veteran with an updated VA examination. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311-12 (2007) (holding that when VA elects to provide a medical examination, the examination must be adequate). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate with the record any outstanding VA medical records pertaining to the Veteran, to include records from August 2018 to the present. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and likely etiology of his current low back disorder. The clinician must opine whether it is at least as likely as not that his low back disorder was incurred or aggravated in service, or is otherwise related to service, to include as a result of the Veteran’s in-service back injury in 1968 (as documented by two separate service treatment records). The examiner should specifically address the following: • The Veteran’s lay contentions regarding the chronology of his symptoms, to include his descriptions of continuous back pain since the in-service injury. The examiner is advised that the Veteran has been deemed competent and credible with respect to his reports of symptoms, treatment, events, and injuries in service and that his assertions must be taken into account, along with the other evidence of record, in formulating the requested medical opinion. • The medical significance of the Veteran’s in-service treatment for low back pain in May and July of 1968. • The medical significance of recent private treatment records indicating that the Veteran had reported unsteady gait since 1972. A complete and detailed rationale should be included in support of all opinions provided. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Minot, 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.