Citation Nr: 21028071 Decision Date: 05/10/21 Archive Date: 05/10/21 DOCKET NO. 17-05 052 DATE: May 10, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability, to include osteoarthritis and spondylosis, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability, to include osteoarthritis, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1962 until August 1966. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2016 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO) rating decision. In February 2020, the Veteran participated in a hearing with the undersigned; a transcript is associated with the claims file. In May 2020, the Board remanded the claims for VA examinations. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83-86 (2006). 1. Entitlement to service connection fora lumbar spine disability, to include osteoarthritis and spondylosis, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability, to include osteoarthritis, is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability is remanded. When VA undertakes to obtain an opinion, it must ensure that the opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). A medical opinion is considered adequate "where it is based on consideration of the veteran's prior medical history and examinations and also describes the disability, if any, in sufficient detail so that the Board's evaluation of the claimed disability will be a fully informed one." Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 123 (2007). The Veteran participated in November 2020 VA examinations to determine the nature and etiology of these disabilities. Therein, the VA examiner opined that they were less likely than not related to service. The VA examiner reasoned, in-part, that the Veteran's contentions of his significant in-service powerlifting, weight training, and marathon running were not supported by his military personnel records; and even if he did so it "doesn't imply he was injured in the process." The Board finds the November 2020 VA examinations inadequate. First, the May 2020 Board decision made clear that the Veteran "was involved with significant powerlifting and weight training in service. Specifically, the Veteran testified that his daily workout routine included dead lifting and squatting up to 500 pounds." The Veteran is competent to describe the types of weight-lifting activities he participated in while on active duty. Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398, 403 (1995). Furthermore, there is no reason to doubt the credibility of the Veteran. As such, the VA examiner's rationale is based at least in part on an incorrect factual basis. Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993). Furthermore, while the VA examiner's statement that there is no evidence in the Veteran's service treatment records that he sought treatment for a back, neck, or bilateral hip disability in service is true, this does not preclude the Veteran from showing that his in-service weight-lifting exercises contributed to his current musculoskeletal disabilities. In sum, the Veteran's contention that he "was involved with significant powerlifting and weight training in service" is settled, for purposes of the requested VA examination. Upon remand, the VA examiner is directed to accept this as fact and opine whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's back, neck, or bilateral hip disabilities onset in service, within one year of service, or are otherwise related to service, to include the conceded weightlifting activities. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum VA medical opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's lumbar and cervical spine disabilities and bilateral hip disabilities. The need for another VA examination (or telehealth interview, review of the record, or similar, if an in-person examination is not feasible) is left to the discretion of the VA examiner. The entire claims folder must be reviewed. The VA examiner must provide separate, well-reasoned opinions as to the following: (a) Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's lumbar spine disability, to include osteoarthritis and spondylosis, onset in service, within one year of service, or is otherwise related to service? (b) Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's cervical spine disability, to include osteoarthritis, onset in service, within one year of service, or is otherwise related to service? (c) Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's right hip disability onset in service, within one year of service, or is otherwise related to service? (d) Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's left hip disability onset in service, within one year of service, or is otherwise related to service? In answering these questions, while the Veteran's service treatment records do not specifically show that he sought treatment due to injury from weight-training, the VA examiner is to accept as fact that the Veteran did indeed participate in powerlifting and weight training exercises in service. From this, the VA examiner is asked to opine whether these in-service weight-lifting activities, or any other incident of service, contributed to developing his current back, neck, and bilateral hip disabilities. The examiner is reminded that the absence of medical evidence during service is not a sufficient rationale for finding that the Veteran's claimed disabilities are not related to service. Caroline B. Fleming Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Finelli, 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.