Citation Nr: 21042320 Decision Date: 07/12/21 Archive Date: 07/12/21 DOCKET NO. 15-41 362 DATE: July 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for adjustment disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for premature ventricular contractions with bigeminy is remanded. The claim for service connection for a low back disorder is remanded. The claim for service connection for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity is remanded. The claim for service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity is remanded. The claim for service connection for a right knee disorder is remanded. The claim for service connection for a left knee disorder is remanded. The claim for service connection for a neck disorder is remanded. The claim for service connection for a headache disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from February 1989 to March 1998. A videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge was held at the RO in December 2018. The hearing transcript has been associated with the claims file. In a June 2021 brief, the Veteran's representative raised questions relating to the qualifications of the November 2019 VA examiner, E.W., NP. The Board finds that a remand is necessary for opportunity to provide the Veteran and his representative a copy of the August 2020 VA examiner's qualifications, such as the curriculum vitae (CV). See Francway v. Wilkie, 940 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The examiner also questioned the adequacy of the November 2019 VA mental health examination, alleging that it was possible that it was of inadequate duration. The Board notes that the representative did not state that the examination was actually inadequate for this reason. In light of the need for remand, the Board finds the duration of the November 2019 VA examination should be obtained and associated with the record if possible. Additionally, the Board finds the record would benefit if new VA examinations were conducted to determine the current impairment associated with the service-connected disabilities. The Board further finds the record would benefit if additional medical opinions were obtained to explicitly clarify whether the Veteran currently has a right cruciate ligament abnormality and to clarify whether the Veteran has a current neck disorder related to service, including the in-service motor vehicle accident. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the Veteran and his representative with a copy of the qualifications of the November 2019 VA examiner, E.W., NP. If the information requested is not available, then the AOJ should advise the Veteran of such and note the reasons for such in the record. 2. Undertake appropriate development to associate the duration of the November 2019 VA mental health examination record with the record. It should be noted if the information requested is not available. 3. Afford the Veteran a VA examination by an examiner with sufficient expertise to fully assess the Veteran's service-connected adjustment disorder. The examiner is informed that service connection is not in effect for the Veteran's posttraumatic stress disorder and to the extent possible, any symptoms should be distinguished. All pertinent evidence of record should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all proffered opinions. 4. Afford the Veteran a VA examination by an examiner with sufficient expertise to fully assess the Veteran's service-connected premature ventricular contractions with bigeminy. The examiner should note their qualifications to perform the examination. All pertinent evidence of record should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all proffered opinions. 5. Afford the Veteran an examination with an appropriate examiner to determine whether the Veteran has a right knee disorder related to active service. The examiner should note their qualifications to perform the examination. Any indicated testing must be conducted, to include magnetic resonance imaging. The examiner should state "yes" or "no" whether the Veteran has a current right cruciate ligament disorder. The examiner should also address whether the Veteran has a residual of in-service ligament abnormality or whether any other right knee disorder was incurred in service or is related to service. For any diagnosed disorder, the examiner should state an opinion as to whether there is a 50 percent or better probability that the disorder was incurred in or is etiologically related to service. The rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided, with consideration of the 1994 treatment for cruciate ligament strain and possible tear. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, the examiner should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, a complete explanation as to why this is so should be provided. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the additional information that is needed should be identified. 6. Afford the Veteran an examination to determine whether the Veteran has a neck disorder related to active service. The examiner should note their qualifications to perform the examination. Any indicated testing must be conducted, to include radiographic imaging. For any diagnosed disorder, the examiner should state an opinion as to whether there is a 50 percent or better probability that the disorder was incurred in or is etiologically related to service. The examiner must provide a rationale for all opinions expressed with consideration of the in-service treatment for the neck and the in-service motor vehicle accident and the post-service motor vehicle accident. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, the examiner should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, a complete explanation as to why this is so should be provided. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the additional information that is needed should be identified. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Snyder, 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.