Citation Nr: 21031350 Decision Date: 05/21/21 Archive Date: 05/21/21 DOCKET NO. 16-43 705 DATE: May 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left leg disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right leg disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1976 to November 1979. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) reopened the claim of service connection for a bilateral leg disability and remanded this matter in November 2018 for further evidentiary development. The case has returned to the Board for appellate review. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left leg disability is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right leg disability is remanded. The Veteran is seeking entitlement to service connection for a bilateral leg disability. She was afforded a VA examination in September 1995; however, no opinion was provided regarding the etiology of the Appellant's leg disability. The Board observes that for an opinion to be adequate, it must include consideration of the Veteran's statements, be based on factual premises, and contain a rationale sufficient to support its conclusions. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). Thus, the Board finds remand is warranted to afford the Veteran with a new VA examination. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. The Veteran contends that her back disability is related to her military service. In the alternative, she asserts that her back disability is aggravated by other disabilities, to include the disabilities being remanded above. See September 2016 VA Form 9. Thus, the Board finds that the Veteran's claim for a back disability is inextricably intertwined with the claims being remanded above. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). Additionally, there is a current disability, lay evidence of an in-service injury, and an indication of nexus. However, to date, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination to determine if her back disability is related to service. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d)(2), 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4)(i). A remand is necessary to provide the Veteran with a VA examination and an opinion discussing the etiology of the back disability. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should obtain copies of all outstanding records from the VA Medical Center and its associated clinics where the Veteran receives treatment. If any pertinent private treatment has been rendered, the Veteran's assistance in obtaining these records should be requested as needed. All attempts to obtain records should be documented in the claims file. 2. Arrange for the Veteran to undergo a VA examination with an appropriate examiner. The claims file should be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examiner should address the following: (a.) Back disability: The VA examiner is asked to identify any currently diagnosed back disability, to include any back disability diagnosed at any time during the course of this appeal. For any diagnosed back disability, the examiner is asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that any currently diagnosed back disability is due to or the result of the Veteran's military service. (b.) Bilateral leg disability: The VA examiner is asked to identify any currently diagnosed leg disability, to include any leg disability diagnosed at any time during the course of this appeal. For any diagnosed leg disability, the examiner is asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that any currently diagnosed leg disability is due to or the result of the Veteran's military service. If the Veteran's leg disabilities are found to be related to her military service, the opinion should include a discussion of whether any back disability found is proximately due to, the result of, or aggravated by the leg disability. (c.) The examiner should provide a detailed rationale for all opinions, including a discussion of the evidence of record and medical principles which led to the conclusions reached. The Veteran's lay statements and any reported history should also be considered in the entry of any opinion. If an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the examiner should explain why it is not possible to provide an opinion. (d.) It should be noted that the Veteran is competent to attest to factual matters of which she had first-hand knowledge, including observable symptomatology. 3. After the development requested has been completed, the AOJ should review the expanded record to ensure complete compliance with the directives of this REMAND. If any report is deficient in any manner, implement corrective procedures at once. MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Frazier, Associate Attorney 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.