Citation Nr: 21021407 Decision Date: 04/12/21 Archive Date: 04/12/21 DOCKET NO. 19-13 023 DATE: April 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability, to include a rotator cuff tear, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1976 to September 1980, August 1992 to January 1994, August 2001 to December 2002, and June 2004 to November 2005, to include service in Southwest Asia. He was awarded the Combat Action Badge, among other decorations. He also served on active duty for training from February 1990 to June 1990 and from January 1994 to May 1994. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2018 decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office. In May 2020, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. While further delay is regrettable, the Board finds remand is necessary before a decision may be rendered with respect to the matter of entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability. The Veteran underwent VA examination in connection with this claim in January 2018. The examiner opined in a February 2018 addendum opinion that the Veteran’s right shoulder disability was less likely than not related to an improvised explosive device blast in service. However, as the examiner relied solely on a lack of documented injury during service to support the opinion, the Board finds the opinion insufficient to determine whether service connection is warranted. Further, while the Veteran submitted a positive private opinion November 2020, the opinion is speculative in nature and does not provide a sufficient rationale to support its findings. In that regard, the physician spoke in general terms about the nature of shoulder injuries, rather than about the Veteran’s particular injury. Accordingly, the Board finds remand is necessary in order to obtain a new VA opinion. Additionally, during the May 2020 hearing, the Veteran’s representative referred to a lay statement from I.W., a medic from the Veteran’s battalion. Upon review, it does not appear this statement has been made a part of the record. As such, the Veteran should be offered the opportunity to submit this lay statement. Updated VA treatment records, as well as any relevant private treatment records identified by the Veteran, should be obtained and associated with the file. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify all outstanding treatment records relevant to his right shoulder disability claim. All identified VA records should be added to the claims file. All other properly identified records should be obtained if the necessary authorization to obtain the records is provided by the Veteran. If any records are not available, or the Veteran identifies sources of treatment but does not provide authorization to obtain records, appropriate action should be taken (see 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)-(e)), to include notifying the Veteran of the unavailability of the records. 2. Ask the Veteran and his representative to submit a copy of the statement from medic I.W. referenced during the May 2020 hearing. 3. After records development is completed, the claims file should be sent to an appropriate examiner to offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the current right shoulder disability onset during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. In offering the opinion, the examiner is asked to consider the November 2020 private opinion as well as the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset of right shoulder pain. The need for an examination is left to the discretion of the examiner. A rationale for all opinions offered is requested as adjudicators are precluded from making any medical findings. Nathan Kroes Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. D. Bruce, 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.