Citation Nr: 21031649 Decision Date: 05/24/21 Archive Date: 05/24/21 DOCKET NO. 16-09 673 DATE: May 24, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1969 to September 1971. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A hearing in this matter was conducted in March 2019. As the Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) who conducted that hearing is no longer available, the Veteran was offered the opportunity for another hearing in November 2020. The letter advised the Veteran that he could request a new hearing, but that if he did not respond within 30 days the Board would proceed to adjudicate his claim. The record is silent for any response from the Veteran or his representative; therefore, the Board will continue review of the appeal. The Board previously remanded this matter in January 2020. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine condition. Unfortunately, the Board finds that additional development must be conducted prior to adjudication of the Veteran's claim. The Veteran asserts that he has a lumbar spine condition due to an injury sustained during basic training. See April 2014 Notice of Disagreement (NOD); see also March 2019 Transcript at 6 (asserting that condition has persisted continuously from service); see also April 2019 Correspondence (providing unsigned statement from the Veteran's children describing circumstances of injury during basic training and asserting that treatment began "within a month... due to the severe pain"). At his hearing, the Veteran denied incurring "any type of back injury" following his active-duty service. See March 2019 Transcript at 5. The Veteran's service treatment records (STR) reflect treatment for back pain, in a note of March 1971, which provides that "[the Veteran] states [his] back has been bothering him for quite some time... [but] [has] had no previous [treatment]." See STR at 5. Private medical records describe the extent of the Veteran's current lumbar spine condition but do not express any opinion as to its etiology. See April 2019 Medical Treatment Records. The Veteran underwent a VA examination regarding this issue in November 2013. The examiner opined that the Veteran's lumbar spine condition was less likely than not incurred in or a result of his active-duty service; however, the examiner's rationale is expressed only as "[no] objective medical evidence of a chronic upper back, mid or lower back condition related to service." See December 2013 VA Examination Report at 16; see also id. at 3 (noting civilian career as a plasterer and retirement due to back pain). "[Most] of the probative value of a medical opinion comes from its reasoning. Neither a VA medical examination report nor a private medical opinion is entitled to any weight... if it contains only data and conclusions." Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). Because the November 2013 VA examination report does not explain the reasoning supporting its conclusion, remand for an adequate explanation is necessary. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311-12 (2007). This matter is therefore REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate clinician regarding the etiology of any current lumbar spine disability. The Veteran's claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner is requested to provide an opinion as to the following: (a). Whether it is at least as likely as not (that is, a probability of at least 50 percent) that any lumbar spine disability present since the filing of his claim, or proximately thereto, was caused or aggravated by an injury or disease incurred during active service. The examiner is asked to discuss the Veteran's reports of an injury sustained during boot camp and the March 1971 in-service complaint of back pain. A complete rationale should be provided for any opinions rendered. If an opinion cannot be provided without resort to pure speculation, the VA examiner should explain why speculation would be required. Patrick M. Johnson Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Blore, 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.