Citation Nr: 21042586 Decision Date: 07/13/21 Archive Date: 07/13/21 DOCKET NO. 16-21 608 DATE: July 13, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from October 1971 to October 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The case was initially brought before the Board in June 2019, at which time the Board remanded the issue on appeal for further development. As discussed below, there has not been substantial compliance with the June 2019 remand instructions, so the matter must be remanded. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. The Veteran seeks service connection for a back disability. The June 2019 Board remand specifically instructed that the VA examiner must consider the Veteran's assertions of his continuous back symptomology in the VA examiner's determination of the nature and etiology of his diagnosed back disability. Pursuant to the June 2019 Board remand, the RO obtained an addendum VA medical opinion in November 2019. In his May 2019 appellate brief, the Veteran asserted that his back pain had been chronic ever since his 1972 in-service injury. The November 2019 VA examiner opined that appellant's diagnosed lumbar spondylosis and right lumbar radiculopathy were less likely than not incurred or caused by the claimed in-service event, however in his rationale he failed to address the Veteran's statement regarding his in-service onset and continuity of symptoms. The examiner must consider the Veteran's lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of symptomatology. Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007). Because the November 2019 VA examiner did not take into consideration the Veteran's statements regarding the complete history of his symptoms, his opinion is incomplete, and the RO did not substantially comply with the Board's prior remand directive to provide a rationale for any opinions expressed. See Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 268. Accordingly, another remand is required to complete the requested development. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Forward the Veteran's claim file to the VA examiner who examined the Veteran in November 2019, or if unavailable, to another appropriately qualified clinician, to provide an addendum medical opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's back disability. An in-person examination need not be scheduled unless deemed necessary by the examiner or otherwise required by the evidence. The examiner must review the claims file in its entirety, to include a copy of this REMAND, and the review should be noted in the examination report. The examiner should provide an opinion addressing whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's back disability is related to his active duty service. In providing the above opinion, the examiner should address the Veteran's statements regarding the history and continuity of his symptoms. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed must be provided. If an opinion cannot be expressed without resort to speculation, discuss why this is the case. 2. Readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. LESLEY A. REIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Ahuva D. Sunshine 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.