Citation Nr: 21040078
Decision Date: 07/02/21	Archive Date: 07/02/21

DOCKET NO. 18-15 215
DATE: July 2, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for low back disability is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from September to December 1950.

The Board remanded the issues of service connection for the low back and a psychiatric disability in August 2020. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) granted service connection for a psychiatric disability in June 2021, which constitutes a full grant of that claim.

1. Entitlement to service connection for low back disability is remanded.

The Veteran has asserted that he hurt his back during a train accident in service and experienced back pain off and on since that time. The June 2021 examiner opined that the Veteran's current back disability is less likely than not due to service, because the Veteran did not mention his back injury when he sought treatment for his shoulder in 1952 and the record does not show treatment for the back until 1997. The Board finds this opinion inadequate as it dismisses the Veteran's report of ongoing pain and relies only on the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39 (2007). Remand is required to provide an adequate medical opinion. 

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain and associate with the claims file any outstanding VA treatment records.

2. Obtain a new medical opinion for the low back. The medical expert should review the claims file and address whether the Veteran's current low back disability is at least as likely as not related to his report of back injury when involved in a train accident in service. The expert should assume the Veteran was involved in the in-service train accident and also consider his report of not seeking treatment but experiencing back pain on and off for years after service. All opinions must be supported by detailed rationale. If the opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the expert should explain why, and state whether the inability is due to the absence of evidence or limits of scientific/medical knowledge.

 

 

A. S. CARACCIOLO

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A.P. Armstrong

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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.