Citation Nr: 21040622 Decision Date: 07/06/21 Archive Date: 07/06/21 DOCKET NO. 16-58 782A DATE: July 6, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for rheumatoid arthritis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for spinal stenosis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from April 1971 to January 1973. In March 2020, the Board remanded the current claims for additional development. Specifically, the Board remanded the issues of entitlement to service connection for rheumatoid arthritis and spinal stenosis to obtain a VA examination and medical opinion. The Board requested that the VA examiner address whether the Veteran's rheumatoid arthritis and spinal stenosis were related to his in-service exposure to asbestos and herbicide agents. Additionally, the Board requested that the examiner provide a rationale explaining all opinions and conclusions in detail. In June 2020, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction obtained a VA examination to evaluate the nature and etiology of the Veteran's rheumatoid arthritis and spinal stenosis. The VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with polymyalgia rheumatica and cervical spinal stenosis. Additionally, the examiner opined that both conditions were less likely than not caused by service. In support of this conclusion, the examiner stated that, "there is no medical connection between the conditions and herbicide exposure." See VA Medical Opinion received July 2020. Nevertheless, the Board finds the VA examiner's opinion insufficient for a number of reasons. First, while the examiner opined that neither the Veteran's polymyalgia rheumatica or cervical spinal stenosis were related to in-service herbicide agents exposure, she failed to address whether the conditions may be related to in-service asbestos exposure. Second, the Board finds the VA examiner's opinion to be conclusory as it is not supported by an adequate rationale. Nieves-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. 295, 301 (2008) (the probative value of a medical opinion is determined by whether the examiner was informed of sufficient facts upon which to base an opinion and whether the report contains data, conclusions, and a complete rationale in support thereof); 38 C.F.R. § 4.2 (noting that if the examination report does not contain sufficient detail, it is incumbent upon the rating board to return the report as inadequate for evaluation purposes). Accordingly, the Board finds that remand is warranted to obtain a VA medical opinion consistent with the directives herein. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain any outstanding records of pertinent medical treatment from VA or private health care providers. With the Veteran's assistance, obtain copies of any pertinent records and add them to the claims file. 2. After the above records request has been completed, to the extent possible, obtain a VA medical opinion from an appropriate examiner to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's polymyalgia rheumatica and cervical spinal stenosis. The claims folder (including a copy of this remand) must be provided to and reviewed by the examiner as part of the examination. All indicated tests should be accomplished and all clinical findings reported in detail. a) The examiner is asked to opine whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's polymyalgia rheumatica and cervical spine stenosis, or any disability of the joints and/or cervical spine, are related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include exposure to asbestos and herbicide agents. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms/history and that such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If his reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. A rationale for all requested opinions shall be provided. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Talton, John H. 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.