Citation Nr: 21025568 Decision Date: 04/28/21 Archive Date: 04/28/21 DOCKET NO. 14-35 424 DATE: April 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1991 to December 1994. This matter came before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veteran’s Law Judge during a June 2017 hearing. The transcript of the hearing is of record. A March 2018 Board decision dismissed the issue of service connection for a heart disability and remanded the remaining issues on appeal for further development. A July 2020 Board decision the denied service connection for left leg shin splints and right ear hearing loss disabilities and remanded the remaining issues on appeal for further development. A February 2019 rating decision granted service connection for traumatic brain injury (TBI) and a left ear hearing loss disability, and a January 2021 rating decision granted service connection for lumbar degenerative disc disease, left and right knee degenerative arthritis and blurred vision. As those decisions constituted a complete grant of the benefit sought on appeal for those issues, they are not before the Board. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability is remanded. The July 2020 Board decision requested a new VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s right and left shoulder disabilities, asking for an opinion regarding whether those disabilities were due to the Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS) or to his documented in-service attack. A November 2020 VA examination diagnosed bilateral shoulder strain but found that both the right and left shoulder disabilities were not due to service. As a rationale, regarding both the right and the left shoulder disabilities the examiner stated that it was less likely that the current disability was due to service as service treatment records did not show a right or left shoulder complaint or condition. The Board finds that the opinion is inadequate as it disregards the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset of his shoulder pain/disabilities merely because they are unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336–37 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Board also notes that the July 2020 remand directives specifically asked the examiner to discuss the in-service episode when the Veteran was attacked and stabbed in the head, but the opinion solely discussed the Veteran’s MOS as a Bradley Fighting Vehicle crewmember. Remand is therefore also required to obtain the requested opinion regarding the in-service attack. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s right and left shoulder disabilities from a different provider than the one who rendered the November 2020 opinion. An in-person examination is not required unless deemed necessary by the provider. The provider should review the file and provide a complete rationale for all opinions expressed. The provider should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s right and left shoulder strain disabilities are related to his active service, to include wear and tear while working as a Bradley infantry crewmember as well as the documented in-service attack. In providing the opinion, the examiner should consider and discuss any lay statements of record, to include the Veteran’s statements regarding the onset and persistence of his symptoms. The examiner is advised that competent lay statements should not be disregarded merely because they are unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence. 2. If upon completion of the above action the appeal 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 A. Arnold 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.