Citation Nr: 22012886 Decision Date: 03/07/22 Archive Date: 03/07/22 DOCKET NO. 05-41 673 DATE: March 7, 2022 REMANDED Service connection for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. A compensable disability rating for the residuals of a contusion of the chest wall and lung is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably in the United States Army from March 1966 to December 1967. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) made in November 2004. This matter is being adjudicated under the legacy appellate framework. The Veteran testified at a personal hearing before the Board in May 2010, and a transcript of the hearing is of record. In April 2018, the Board disposed of the Veteran's back disability claim, but, in August 2019, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) vacated the Board's disposition and remanded the Veteran's back disability claim back to the Board for further consideration. In May 2020, the Board remanded the Veteran's back disability claim in order to ensure substantial compliance with the Board's previous remand instructions. The Board also remanded the Veteran's chest and lung wall claim for the issuance of a statement of the case (SOC). In March 2021, the Board disposed of the Veteran's back disability claim and found that the Veteran had not perfected a timely substantiative appeal to the Board. Pursuant to a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), in January 2022, the Court vacated the Board's disposition and remanded these matters back to the Board for further consideration. 1. Service connection for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. At issue is whether the Veteran is entitled to service connection for a lumbar spine disability. As previously noted in March 2021, the Board disposed of the Veteran's back disability claim, but in January 2022, the Court vacated the Board's disposition and remanded the claim back to the Board for further consideration. Specifically, the JMPR took issue with the fact that a May 2004 VA examination indicated that there was a weak correlation between the Veteran's back disability and an automobile accident during a period of service, and the Board did not address the relationship between the Veteran's back disability and this automobile accident. Additionally, the JMPR took issue with a September 2010 VA examination that indicated that a pre-existing back injury was aggravated by a motor vehicle accident despite the fact that the Board found that the Veteran's pre-existing back injury resolved prior to service. Finally, the JMPR took issue with the fact that a November 2011 VA examination failed to address the issue of direct service connection. Therefore, this matter must be remanded in order to address the above concerns. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). 2. A compensable disability rating for the residuals of a contusion of the chest wall and lung is remanded. As previously noted in May 2020, the Board remanded the Veteran's chest and lung wall claim for the issuance of a SOC, and, in March 2021, the Board found that the Veteran had not perfected a timely substantiative appeal to the Board; and, in January 2022, the Court found that a new SOC had to be issued. Therefore, this matter must be remanded for a new SOC. See Stegall. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Arrange to provide the Veteran with a VA examination in order to address the following: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or more) that a medical nexus exists between an in-service incurrence and a current diagnosis of a back disability? Why or why not? (b.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or more) that a pre-existing back disability was aggravated beyond its natural progression by a period of service? Why or why not? (c.) Is it clear and unmistakable (obvious or manifest) that the Veteran's back disability pre-existed a period of service? Why or why not? (d.) Is it clear and unmistakable (obvious or manifest) that the Veteran's back disability was NOT aggravated beyond its natural progression by period of service? Why or why not? (e.) What is the medical significance, if any, of the fact that a May 2004 VA examination indicated that there was a weak correlation between the Veteran's back disability and an automobile accident during a period of service? Why? (f.) What is the medical significance, if any, of the fact that a September 2010 VA examination indicated that a pre-existing back injury was aggravated by an in-service motor vehicle accident? Why? (g.) Did the Veteran's pre-existing back injury resolve prior to a period of service? Why or why not? (h.) Please review the November 2011 VA examination and indicate to what extent, if any, the examination results inform whether or not there is a medical nexus between an in-service incurrence and a current diagnosis of a back disability? Why? 2. Issue the Veteran a SOC responsive to the April 2019 notice of disagreement (NOD). Do not return this matter to the Board unless the Veteran submits a timely substantive appeal to the Board. DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board David R. Seaton, 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.