Citation Nr: 21029011 Decision Date: 05/12/21 Archive Date: 05/12/21 DOCKET NO. 17-01 126 DATE: May 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for degenerative arthritis of the thoracolumbar spine, claimed as a back condition, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1974 to August 1977. This matter arose to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an August 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2021, the Veteran testified at a virtual Board hearing before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative arthritis of the thoracolumbar spine, claimed as a back condition, is remanded. The Veteran contends he is entitled to service connection for a back condition, to include degenerative arthritis of the thoracolumbar spine. According to the Veteran's testimony at his February 2021 Board hearing as well as several lay statements (for example, his October 2016 notice of disagreement), he first injured his back while offloading skids of paper while in the Air Force. Following the Veteran's time in service, he continued to experience continuous back pain prior to 2000, when the Veteran was involved in the first of two motor vehicle accidents; thereafter, he has continued to experience back pain. The Veteran explained at his February 2021 hearing that he did not understand he was eligible for medical care at his VA hospital following his time in service, which is why he does not have continuous medical records documenting the continuous pain in his back. The Veteran has, however, submitted statements from long-time acquaintances attesting to the fact that the Veteran suffered from continuous back pain well before his first motor vehicle accident in 2000. The Veteran underwent a VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination in July 2016. In the report, the examiner declared it less likely than not that the Veteran's back disability was related to service because the Veteran did not have medical documentation of treatment for back pain following service and prior to his motor vehicle accidents; thus, his disability was more likely related to the motor vehicle accidents. In reaching this conclusion, the examiner failed to discuss the Veteran's lay statements that he did, in fact, experience continuous pain in his back from service until the time of his motor vehicle accidents. The examiner also ignored the two statements submitted by the Veteran's friends, discussing his back pain before the first of his two motor vehicle accidents. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting lay evidence concerning the onset of symptoms, if credible, is competent, regardless of the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence). Accordingly, prior to adjudication, a remand is necessary for an updated examination and nexus opinion taking these issues into account. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by an examiner to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's back disability, to include degenerative arthritis of the thoracolumbar spine. The examiner is asked to review the claims file and provide the following information: (a) State whether the criteria for a diagnosis are met. (b) Opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's disability was incurred in or otherwise related to the Veteran's service, to include as a result of injuries he sustained from offloading skids of paper in the Air Force. (c) If it is determined that there is another likely etiology for the Veteran's disability, that should be stated. (d) The examiner is specifically asked to comment on the Veteran's statements, including his testimony at his February 2021 Board hearing, that he suffered from continuous back pain since service, prior to the first of his motor vehicle accidents. The examiner should also discuss the two buddy statements (submitted in December 2016), attesting to the fact that the Veteran suffered from back pain well before his first motor vehicle accident. The examiner should set forth all examination findings, with a clear rationale for the conclusions reached. LESLEY A. REIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Ryan, 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.