Citation Nr: 22017902 Decision Date: 03/26/22 Archive Date: 03/26/22 DOCKET NO. 16-40 169 DATE: March 26, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right wrist disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from March 1963 to January 1974. He served in Vietnam from April 1969 to March 1970 and was awarded the Parachute Badge as well as the Vietnam Campaign Medal w/60 Device. The Board sincerely thanks the Veteran for his service to our country. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an August 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). These claims were previously before the Board in September 2019, when they remanded for further development. They were again before the Board in January 2021, when the claims were denied. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a November 2021 Order, granting an October 2021 Joint Motion for Remand (Joint Motion), the Court vacated and remanded the September 2019 Board decision consistent with the terms of the Joint Motion. The case has now returned to the Board for further appellate review and readjudication consistent with the terms of the Joint Motion. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right wrist disability is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist disability is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is remanded. 6. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. 7. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. The October 2021 Joint Motion explains that the Board did not provide adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision and erred by relying on an examination that is inadequate to adjudicate the Veteran's back, neck, and right shoulder claims. The Joint Motion describes that, at the hearing, the Veteran testified that he had received hospital treatment at Fort Richardson (Elmendorf) in Alaska both in-service and following his discharge from service, but that it is unclear from the record whether the RO made any efforts to obtain these records. The Joint Motion explains that remand is required for the Board to determine whether VA adequately assisted the Veteran in developing the facts of his claims considering the hospital records that he identified. Regarding the Veteran's neck and right shoulder disabilities, the Joint Motion observes that the Board found that continuity of symptomatology is not alleged or shown, despite the September 2015 VA neck examination noting the Veteran's report that symptoms had their onset in 1969 and had "stayed the same," and the December 2013 VA treatment record reflecting a report of right shoulder and neck symptoms "forever" with onset with military activities. The Joint Motion instructed the Board to address whether the evidence of record, to include the Veteran's lay statements and evidence cited above, established continuity of symptoms since service to warrant service connection for the Veteran's right shoulder or neck disabilities. Further, regarding the Veteran's back, neck, and right shoulder claims, the Joint Motion explains that the Board erred in relying on an examination that is inadequate to adjudicate these claims. Specifically, the Joint Motion describes that the Board's September 2019 remand directions instructed the examiner to address whether the Veteran's disabilities at issue were incurred in or related to service, including because of his parachute jumps in service. The Joint Motion observes that the July 2020 examiner provided negative nexus opinions as to the Veteran's back, neck, and right shoulder disabilities. Rationalizing that the record shows no prior injuries nor documentation of a service-related injury. The Joint Motion explains that it is unclear whether the examiner considered the Veteran's in-service parachute jumps as none of the opinions address this evidence. The Joint Motion instructs that a new examination or opinion be provided on remand for the Veteran's back, neck, and right shoulder disabilities. The claims are remanded to attempt to associate clinical treatment records with the claims file and to provide the Veteran with a medical opinion that complies with the September 2019 remand directives. The Board is not making any credibility determinations currently. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Please associate with the virtual file: (a.) the Veteran's in-service hospital treatment at Fort Richardson (Elmendorf), Alaska; and (b.) post service clinical records from Fort Richardson (Elmendorf) in Alaska. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. 2. Please secure for the record copies of complete updated clinical records (any not already of record) of all VA and non-VA treatment the Veteran has received for the disorders on appeal. Please ask the Veteran to provide the releases necessary for VA to secure any adequately identified private treatment records. 3. After the Action in paragraphs 1 and 2 above is complete, please refer the claim to a clinician for a nexus opinion as to the nature and etiology of the Veteran's back, neck, and right shoulder disabilities. The Veteran's claims-file must be made available to and reviewed by the clinician. Based on review of the record, the clinician is requested to provide an opinion as to the following: With respect to the Veteran's back disability: (a.) Please identify by diagnosis or functional impairment all back disorders that were present at any time during the period on appeal, including any that may have since resolved. (b.) With respect to each back disorder, is it at least as likely as not related to service, including as a result of his parachute jumps in service? (c.) Please explain whether any diagnosed disability is, or is not, consistent with the types of long-term disabilities that would likely result following significant parachute activity. With respect to the Veteran's neck disability: (d.) Please identify by diagnosis or functional impairment all neck disorders that were present at any time during the period on appeal, including any that may have since resolved. (e.) With respect to each neck disorder, is it at least as likely as not related to service, including as a result of his parachute jumps in service, particularly given the Veteran's report of neck symptoms since that time? (f.) Please explain whether any diagnosed disability is, or is not, consistent with the types of long-term disabilities that would likely result following significant parachute activity. With respect to the Veteran's right shoulder disability: (g.) Please identify by diagnosis or functional impairment all right shoulder disabilities that were present at any time during the period on appeal, including any that may have since resolved. (h.) With respect to each right shoulder disorder, is it at least as likely as not related to service, including as a result of his parachute jumps in service, particularly given the Veteran's report of right shoulder symptoms since that time? (i.) Please explain whether any diagnosed disability is, or is not, consistent with the types of long-term disabilities that would likely result following significant parachute activity. The clinician should consider and address, as appropriate: The December 2013 VA treatment record reflecting a report of right shoulder and neck symptoms "forever" with onset with military activities. The September 2015 VA neck examination noting the Veteran's report that his symptoms had their onset in 1969 and had "stayed the same." ONLY IF the clinician determines that an examination is necessary for an etiological opinion or to assess the current severity of the Veteran's disabilities, the Veteran should be scheduled for an appropriate VA examination. The clinician must explain the rationale for all opinions in detail, citing to supporting clinical data and/or medical literature, as appropriate. The clinician should take into consideration that the Veteran is competent to report in-service and post-service symptom experiences; other witnesses are competent to report observable symptoms. If the clinician cannot provide an opinion without resorting to speculation, the examiner should provide an explanation as to why this is so and note what, if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be made. M. C. GRAHAM Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board O. Halpern 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.