Citation Nr: 22015715 Decision Date: 03/18/22 Archive Date: 03/18/22 DOCKET NO. 17-47 775 DATE: March 18, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral shoulder disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from October 1984 to February 1989. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of an April 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). By way of background, the claims listed on the title page (as well as a claim for service connection for a low back disorder) were remanded by the Board on September 27, 2021. The Veteran was issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) for the cervical spine and bilateral shoulders on November 19, 2021. The Board accordingly reasserts jurisdiction. A November 2021 rating decision granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for a lumbosacral strain and assigned an initial rating. As this decision represents a full grant of the benefits sought with respect to this claim for service connection, such issue is no longer before the Board for consideration. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1977). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral shoulder disorder is remanded. In short, the claims were remanded by the Board in September 2021 because the Veteran claimed that all disorders originated from one battery-box explosion incident in 1988. See BVA Remand (Sept. 27, 2021). Upon examinations dated in November 2021, the Veteran has diagnoses of a cervical neck strain and bilateral shoulder strains, but the only etiological opinions for each of these simply state "All available records were reviewed. STR without evidence to support [the] condition." See VA Exam (Nov. 5, 2021), at Pages 2, 10-11, and 22. However, the examiner failed to provide a rationale for this opinion. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). In addition, the September 2021 VA examiner appears to base their opinion exclusively on the absence of notations in the Veteran's service treatment records. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007). The September 2021 opinion is therefore inadequate for adjudication purposes. Under these circumstances, the claims are remanded to obtain an adequate etiology opinion. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Veteran should be given the opportunity to identify any outstanding private or VA treatment records relevant to the claims on appeal. After obtaining any necessary authorization from the Veteran, all outstanding records should be obtained, to include updated VA treatment records. For private treatment records, make at least two (2) attempts to obtain records from any identified sources. If any such records are unavailable, inform the Veteran and his representative and afford him an opportunity to submit any copies in their possession. For federal records, all reasonable attempts should be made to obtain such records. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran must be notified of the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 2. Following the receipt of outstanding records, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an appropriate clinician to determine the etiology of the Veteran's claimed cervical spine and bilateral shoulder disorders. The record, to include a copy of this Remand, should be made available to the examiner, and all indicated tests should be conducted. Further physical examination is left to the discretion of the examiner. Thereafter, the examiner is asked to furnish an opinion with respect to the following questions: (A) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's cervical spine disorder had its onset during any period of service, or is otherwise related to such period of service, to include a battery box explosion in 1988? (B) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's bilateral shoulder disorder had its onset during any period of service, or is otherwise related to such period of service, to include a battery box explosion in 1988? (C) If and only if the examiner has found the Veteran's cervical spine condition to be related to service, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's bilateral shoulder disorder is caused or aggravated by his cervical spine disorder? (Continued on the next page) A rationale should be provided for all opinions offered. If it is not possible to provide a specific opinion regarding the above questions, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). The medical opinion must support the conclusions reached with an analysis that is adequate for the Board to consider and weigh against other evidence of record; medical opinions must contain not only clear conclusions with supporting data, but also a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two. If an opinion cannot be expressed without resorting to speculation, ensure that the clinician so indicates and discusses why an opinion is not possible, to include whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. KRISTY L. ZADORA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael B. Engle, Associate 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.