Citation Nr: 22017259 Decision Date: 03/24/22 Archive Date: 03/24/22 DOCKET NO. 18-20 641 DATE: March 24, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a neck condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the US Navy from September 1975 to September 1979. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a February 2017 rating decision issued by a Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) (hereinafter agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ)). In November 2021, the Veteran testified at a video hearing before the undersigned Veteran's Law Judge. A written transcript of that hearing is of record. Entitlement to service connection for a neck condition is remanded. The Veteran asserts that his neck condition is related to an in-service injury, where, while playing football, the Veteran ran into sail mast. Further, the Veteran's STRs note that the Veteran ran into a piece of wood while playing football on the beach. And post service treatment records note treatment for neck pain. However, the Board cannot make a fully informed decision on the issues of because no VA examiner has opined whether the noted conditions are related to the Veteran's military service. Further, the Board observes that the medical opinion supportive of the claim contains insufficient rationale to support an award of benefits at this time, as it does not contain a sufficient rationale. The probative value of a medical opinion comes from its reasoning. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The "factually accurate, fully articulated, sound reasoning for the conclusion" contributes probative value to a medical opinion. Id. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding VA treatment records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his bilateral shoulder conditions. The examiner must opine: (a.) Whether there is a nearly equal or greater probability that the Veteran's neck condition is etiologically related to his period of service, including the described in-service injury where, while playing football, the Veteran's ran into a sail mast? The examiner is requested to discuss whether the mechanism of injury described by the Veteran was sufficiently severe to result in any current abnormalities of the cervical spine, and whether there is any medical reason why or why not a chronic whiplash injury to the cervical spine would have been detected on the separation physical. In rendering this opinion, the examiner must address the following: Service Treatment Records, noting the Veteran ran into a piece of wood while playing football in August 1977; the October 1979 separation examination wherein the Veteran denied a history of arthritis, rheumatism, bursitis, and physical examination reflected a normal clinical evaluation of the spine; Post-service treatment records, endorsing neck pain, an injury to the 7th vertebra, and the occasional stiff neck; November 2021 hearing testimony; and December 2021 private medical opinion, wherein Dr. M.V. opines that the "findings are consistent with a cervical whiplash injury that may have happened as a result of being hit in the face by a sail mast forty to fifty years ago." A complete rationale for any opinion should be provided. The examiner must not rely solely on the absence of a diagnosis or symptoms in service as the basis for a negative opinion. It is also noted that the mere passage of time without treatment is not a sufficient basis for finding that no relationship between a current disability and service exists. Any opinion should be reconciled with the service treatment and personnel records, any post-service diagnoses, lay statements, and testimony of the Veteran. If the lay evidence is rejected, an explanation must be provided. If an opinion cannot be made without resort to speculation, please state so and include an explanation for that conclusion. 3. Thereafter, the AOJ should consider all of the evidence of record and readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefits sought are not granted, issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), and allow the Veteran and his representative an opportunity to respond. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Patrick C. Brady, 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.