Citation Nr: 21024516 Decision Date: 04/23/21 Archive Date: 04/23/21 DOCKET NO. 11-12 707 DATE: April 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy is remanded. REFERRED As the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) noted in its December 2019 decision, in October 2018, the Board remanded claims for service connection for radiculopathy and bilateral foot cramps, and for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU). While the regional office (RO) by an August 2019 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) addressed the claim for service connection for radiculopathy, the RO has still not issued an SSOC addressing the claims for bilateral foot cramps and TDIU. Hence, those two issues are not yet ripe for the Board's appellate review following remand. These issues are referred to the RO for any necessary action and issuance of an SSOC. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 2001 to May 2002. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is grateful for his service. 1. Entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy is remanded. In December 2019, the Board denied the Veteran’s claim for service connection for radiculopathy. The Veteran appealed this denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), and the Court approved a September 2020 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) vacating the Board’s decision and remanding the case for action as directed by the JMR. In its December 2019 decision, the Board relied substantially on an August 2018 back examination and a July 2019 addendum to that examination which concluded that the Veteran did not have a thoracic spine pathology despite the Veteran being service connected for degenerative joint disease of the thoracic spine. As the Board then explained, the examiner concluded that the prior assessment of a thoracic degenerative condition was in error based on reliance on a non-credible self-report by the Veteran of a degenerative condition of the spine. The July 2019 addendum noted that orthopedic notes and lab data and imagining including DEXA scan and bone scan from 2009 were all normal, x-rays from December 2002 and 2006 showed no degenerative changes, and examination in August 2018 also revealed no spine pathology. The examiner noted that the Veteran did suffer from symptomatic stress fracture of the inferior and superior pelvic ramus on both the left and right sides, but these were conditions of the hips, not the back. The Court-approved JMR found that the July 2019 addendum was inadequate for failing to reconcile the finding of no thoracic pathology with an EMG report from June 2009 which stated that there was “electrophysiologic evidence of bilateral lumbosacral radiculopathy” and a June 2009 private medical record appearing to provide an assessment of lumbosacral radiculopathy. Accordingly, another addendum is required to address the June 2009 records (including the EMG report) and reconcile it with findings and conclusions from the August 2018 examination and July 2019 addendum. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Return the claims file for an additional addendum to the August 2018 VA spine examiner, to reconcile the findings and conclusions of the August 2018 examination and July 2019 addendum regarding the absence of thoracic spine disability or thoracic or lumbosacral radiculopathy, with the June 2009 EMG report stating that there was “electrophysiologic evidence of bilateral lumbosacral radiculopathy” and June 2009 private medical record appearing to provide an assessment of lumbosacral radiculopathy. Inform the examiner that this is required by a Joint Motion for Remand in September 2020 as approved by an order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 2. Thereafter, readjudicate the appealed claim. L. Chu Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Schechter 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.