Citation Nr: 21027635 Decision Date: 05/06/21 Archive Date: 05/06/21 DOCKET NO. 20-22 029 DATE: May 6, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip disability is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1979 to November 1979, with additional service in the Army National Guard. This matter is on appeal from a May 2016 decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine condition is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine condition is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip disability is remanded. The Veteran has not been provided with a VA examination for the claims on appeal. VA is obliged to provide an examination or obtain a medical opinion in a claim of service connection when the record contains competent evidence that the claimant has a current disability or signs and symptoms of a current disability, the record indicates that the disability or signs and symptoms of disability may be associated with active service, and the record does not contain sufficient information to make a decision on the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d). In June 2016, VA received a correspondence from Dr. C.Q., who stated that the Veteran's "musculoskeletal and psychiatric disorders ... are more probable than not secondary to his military service." Dr. C.Q. did not provide a rationale for this finding; thus, this opinion is not sufficiently probative by itself to establish service connection. However, this evidence, at minimum, indicates that the Veteran's disabilities may be related to service. Accordingly, VA examinations must be scheduled to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's disabilities. The record also reflects the Veteran receives VA treatment; thus, updated VA treatment records should be associated with the claims file. 5. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. The Veteran contends that the disabilities on appeal render him unable to secure substantially gainful employment. Thus, the matters being remanded could affect any determination regarding entitlement to TDIU. See Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (two issues are inextricably intertwined when they are so closely tied together that a final Board decision cannot be rendered unless both are adjudicated). As such, the claim seeking TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the issues being remanded, and these issues must be adjudicated before a decision can be reached on the Veteran's claim for TDIU. The RO is therefore asked to complete the above requested development and then adjudicate the Veteran's claim for TDIU. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's VA treatment records for the period from March 2020 to the present. 2. After completing the development in item 1, schedule examinations with appropriate clinicians for the Veteran's claims for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, lumbar spine condition, cervical spine condition, and bilateral hip condition. The reviewing clinicians should be requested to provide opinions (based on a review of the record) which address the nature and etiology of the Veteran's disabilities. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. If the clinician cannot provide a requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the clinician must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. The clinician must indicate whether there was any further need for information or testing necessary to make a determination. Additionally, the clinician must indicate whether any opinion could not be rendered due to limitations of knowledge in the medical (Continued on the next page) community at large and not those of the particular examiner. J. B. FREEMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. H. White, Associate 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.