Citation Nr: 22045103 Decision Date: 08/09/22 Archive Date: 08/09/22 DOCKET NO. 14-34 399 DATE: August 9, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection, to include on a secondary basis, for a cervical spine disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1956 to June 1976. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran appeared for a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in June 2018. The hearing transcript is associated with the claims file. In April 2021, the Board denied service connection for a cervical spine disability. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision denying service connection for a cervical spine disability to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), which, in April 2022, granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR). The Court's order vacated the Board's April 2021 decision and remanded the matter to the Board consistent with the terms of the joint motion The Board notes that this matter has been advanced on the docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). Entitlement to service connection, to include on a secondary basis, for a cervical spine disability is remanded. The Veteran contends that he has a cervical spine disability either due to in-service pain in the side of his neck that radiated to his shoulder or due to or aggravated by his service-connected lumbar spine disability. The April 2022 JMR found that October 2020 and January 2021 VA opinions were inadequate because the examiner failed to address evidence contained in the Veteran's service treatment records and failed to properly address the Veteran's lay statements. Specifically, an April 1976 service treatment record notes that the Veteran awoke with pain in the side of his neck radiating to his shoulder. The Veteran also indicated that his cervical spine condition has been present since service. Moreover, the January 2021 VA addendum opinions provided the same rationale for opinions addressing direct, secondary causation, and secondary aggravation theories of entitlement and, therefore, did not adequately address each theory of entitlement. The Board finds that remand is warranted to obtain adequate VA opinions addressing direct and secondary service connection. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion, or schedule a VA examination, if necessary, to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's cervical spine disability. The Veteran's claims file, to include a copy of this remand, must be made available to the examiner in conjunction with the examination along with any other information the medical professional deems pertinent. A note that it was reviewed should be included in the opinion. The examiner is asked to provide an opinion addressing the following: a. Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that the Veteran's cervical spine disability is causally or etiologically related to his military service? b. Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that the Veteran's cervical spine disability is caused by or etiologically related to his service-connected lumbar spine disability or any other service-connected disability? c. Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that the Veteran's cervical spine disability was aggravated (any incremental increase in the cervical spine disability beyond its normal progression) by his service-connected lumbar spine disability, or any other service-connected disability? If it is determined that the cervical spine disability is aggravated by a service-connected disability, to the extent possible, the examiner should indicate the approximate degree of disability or baseline before the onset of aggravation. The VA examiner should consider the April 1976 service treatment record which notes the Veteran awoke with neck pain radiating to his right shoulder. The VA examiner should also consider the Veteran's June 2018 testimony before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. (Continued on the next page) 2. Then, readjudicate the claim. If the determination of the claim remains unfavorable to the Veteran, then issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afford him a reasonable period of time to respond before returning the case to the Board. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Palombi, 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.