Citation Nr: 21022876 Decision Date: 04/19/21 Archive Date: 04/19/21 DOCKET NO. 16-20 439 DATE: April 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from November 1974 until November 1977 and additional periods of Reserve service until 2000. In September 2019, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been reviewed. The Board remanded this claim for additional development in December 2019 and December 2020. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is remanded. The Veteran contends that his neck disability is related to injuries during his Reserve service. As noted in the previous remand, at the Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he was involved in a fuel truck accident in service. He testified that he hit his head on the cab of the truck and his back on the dashboard. Reserve service treatment records show that the Veteran was involved in a motor vehicle accident in June 1993. A line of duty determination dated in June 1993 reflects that the Veteran was on active duty, and the accident occurred during annual training. In December 2020, the case was remanded for a medical opinion. The examiner was asked to consider a June 1993 line of duty determination indicating that the Veteran hit his head in a car accident. In February 2021, a VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s cervical spine disability is less likely than not related to service. The examiner noted that the Veteran was issued a line of duty determination in June 1993 for hitting his knee and head against the dashboard in MVA. The examiner noted that the claims folder is silent until 2012, with notation of neck pain for three weeks and x-ray diagnosing osteophyte with DDD. The examiner’s rationale was that there was no evidence of cervical spine disease in service. The examiner stated that the Veteran's c-spine arthritis was diagnosed many years after service and is unrelated to the line of duty determination in 1993. The rationale for the opinion is inadequate because it relied on the absence of treatment after service until 2012. Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007) (an examination is inadequate where the examiner did not comment on the Veteran's reports, but instead relied solely on medical evidence to provide a negative opinion). At the Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he had neck problems all the time after he got out of the Reserves in 2000, and his range of motion became more limited. A remand is necessary to obtain an addendum opinion which fully considers his lay report of cervical spine symptoms since service. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the Veteran’s cervical spine disability. (a) The examiner should opine whether the Veteran's cervical spine disability was at least as likely as not (i) incurred in or aggravated by active service; (ii) is a result of a disease or injury incurred or aggravated during a period or periods of ACDUTRA; or (iii) is a result of an injury incurred or aggravated during a period or periods of INACDUTRA; or is otherwise related to active service. The examiner should provide a detailed rationale for the opinion. The examiner must address the Veteran’s September 2019 testimony that he had problems with his neck since getting out of the Reserves in 2000, and the range of motion of his neck became more limited. (b) The examiner should opine whether the cervical spine disability is proximately due to the Veteran’s service-connected lumbar spine disability. (c) The examiner should opine whether the cervical spine disability is aggravated beyond its natural progression by the Veteran’s service-connected lumbar spine disability. JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Catherine Cykowski 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.