Citation Nr: 22044843 Decision Date: 08/08/22 Archive Date: 08/08/22 DOCKET NO. 17-10 443 DATE: August 8, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder condition, to include right shoulder impingement, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1996 to April 2000. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2016 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned at a hearing in September 2021. The Board remanded this matter in January 2022 for additional development. It is now returned to the Board for further appellate review. VA provided the Veteran an examination in March 2022 to determine the etiology of his right shoulder condition. It is inadequate to adjudicate the Veteran's claim. The March 2022 examiner provided a negative nexus opinion, in part, because the Veteran's service treatment records did not contain notations of a right shoulder condition. The Veteran testified at the September 2021 hearing he sought medical treatment for his shoulder while on active duty, the treating corpsman told him he would continue to have shoulder issues, and his shoulder would "give out" during training exercises. He further testified he continued to have shoulder pain after separating from active duty until eventually seeking treatment from VA in approximately 2016. In other words, the examiner appears to have impermissibly dismissed the Veteran's reports of continuous right shoulder problems solely because these complaints were not documented in medical treatment records. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39-40 (2007); see also Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (that reports of symptomatology are not supported by contemporaneous clinical evidence does not render them inherently not credible). Further, the March 2022 examiner provided a negative nexus opinion, in part, because the Veteran did not seek treatment for his right shoulder until 2016, several years after he separated from active duty. See April 2022 Medical Nexus Opinion. The examiner did not explain the significance of the duration of time between when the Veteran separated from active duty and seeking treatment for his right shoulder in 2016 and how it weighs against service connection, particularly in light of the Veteran's lay statements regarding ongoing symptoms during this time period. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007) (once VA undertakes to provide an examination, it must provide an adequate one). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's right shoulder condition, to include right shoulder impingement. Schedule the Veteran for an examination only if deemed necessary by the clinician selected to provide the opinion. The selected clinician must provide an opinion addressing whether the Veteran's right shoulder condition is at least as likely as not (at least an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence) a result of an in-service event, disease, or injury. The selected clinician must address the Veteran's contention that he injured his right shoulder while on active duty, sought treatment, the corpsman told him he would continue to experience right shoulder pain, his right shoulder continued to give out while on active duty, and he experienced right shoulder pain since separating from active duty. The examiner must be advised the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the examiner rejects the Veteran's reports, he or she must provide a reason for doing so. The examiner may not dismiss the Veteran's reports of right shoulder pain solely on the basis that they are not documented in contemporaneous treatment records. The selected examiner must provide a full rationale for his or her conclusion. If any of the above issues cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation, then a detailed medical explanation as to why this is so must be provided. M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Zachery S.C. Luce, 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.