Citation Nr: 21023073
Decision Date: 04/20/21	Archive Date: 04/20/21

DOCKET NO. 14-28 760A
DATE: April 20, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

In March 2020, the Board denied the claim for service connection for a back disability.  The Veteran appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).  In November 2020, the CAVC vacated the March 2020 denial and remanded the issue to the Board consistent with the Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMR).  The Board notes the CAVC did not have jurisdiction over the remanded issues of entitlement to service-connection for traumatic brain injury and a compensable evaluation for the Veteran’s scar; these matters will be the subject of a separate decision.   

In the JMR, the parties agreed that vacatur of the Board’s March 2020 denial of service connection for back disability was necessary to ensure compliance with the Board’s previous remand instructions.  Specifically, the CAVC indicated that the 2018 VA examiner failed to address and provide adequate discussion of the Veteran’s statements that he has had continuous back pain since service as requested in the remand directives.  Thus, CAVC determined that the Board erred when relying on the 2018 VA examination which did not conform with Board’s February 2018 remand order. 

As there has not been substantial compliance with the Board’s February 2018 remand directives, another remand is required.  Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998).

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1.  Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s back disability at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) had its onset during active service or is any way related to his active duty service, to include the 1970 motor vehicle accident.  In rendering this opinion, the examiner must address and discuss the Veteran’s statements regarding the history of in-service injury, the objective medical evidence from his military service, post service medical records, the Veteran’s complaints of continuous back pain since, and any other pertinent clinical findings of record.  The complete rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided.  

If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinions without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the examiner must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. The examiner must indicate whether there was any further need for information or testing necessary to make a determination. Additionally, the examiner 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.

2.  If upon completion of the above action, the claim remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board 

 

after compliance with appellate procedures. 

 

E. I. VELEZ

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	K. L. Wallin, 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.