Citation Nr: 21039663 Decision Date: 07/01/21 Archive Date: 07/01/21 DOCKET NO. 15-31 911 DATE: July 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for cervical spine disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for lumbar spine disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral lower extremity disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran on active duty from May 1984 to April 1986. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2011 rating decision of the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In June 2019, the Board remanded the appeal for additional evidentiary development. During remand status, the AOJ granted service connection for left ankle disability in a June 2020 rating decision, and for right ankle disability, right foot neuroma, and left foot arthritis in a November 2020 rating decision. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that a grant of service connection extinguishes appeals before the Board). 1. Entitlement to service connection for cervical spine disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for lumbar spine disability. Issues 1 & 2: The Veteran contends that his health "decline started with my injuries from the military which were to my left and right ankles...." See Correspondence (August 2011). Additionally, the evidence indicates that his spine disabilities are secondary to his service-connected bilateral ankle disabilities "as he keeps continually shifting his weight to find comfortable position." See C&P Exam (September 2020). In compliance with the previous June 2019 Board remand, the record shows VA contract examinations were afforded in September 2020 and medical opinions obtained addressing direct service connection. The record also shows an addendum opinion of October 2020 rendered by the same examiner who evaluated the Veteran above. Although the September and October 2020 medical opinions are adequate, the Board observes an opinion is needed to address the secondary service connection theory of entitlement as raised by the record. Specifically, at his September 2020 examination, the Veteran reported that his back pain is due to his ankle pain. As noted above, during the pendency of the appeal, service connection was established for the Veteran's ankle disability. Thus, an opinion for secondary service connection is needed. 3. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral lower extremity disability. The evidence shows that the Veteran's degenerative arthritis and stenosis of the lumbar spine causes bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. See C&P Exam (September 2020). Accordingly, the claim for a bilateral lower extremity disability is inextricably intertwined with the pending claim of service connection for lumbar spine disability that is being remanded, and adjudication must be deferred until the intertwined issue is decided. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician on the etiology of the Veteran's (1) cervical spine and (2) lumbar spine disabilities. The electronic claims file should be made accessible to the examiner along with any other information the medical professional deems pertinent. If the reviewer determines that additional examination of the Veteran is necessary to provide a reliable opinion, such examination should be scheduled. Based on the review of the record, the examiner should provide an addendum opinion for each neck and back disability: Whether the Veteran's disability is at least as likely as not (1) proximately due to service-connected bilateral ankle or bilateral foot disabilities; or (2) aggravated beyond its natural progression by service-connected bilateral ankle or bilateral foot disabilities. Provide a rationale that addresses causation and aggravation as independent concepts. A complete rationale for all findings and conclusions is requested. (Continued on the next page) 2. Upon completion of the requested development and any additional development deemed appropriate, adjudicate the claims on appeal. If the determination remains unfavorable, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case which addresses all relevant evidence. The Veteran and his representative should be afforded the applicable time period in which to respond. Then, return the case to the Board. SONJA S. AN Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Thaddaeus J. Cox, 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.