Citation Nr: 22048167
Decision Date: 08/24/22	Archive Date: 08/24/22

DOCKET NO. 15-31 045A
DATE: August 24, 2022

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for a neck disorder claimed as secondary to a service connected low back disability is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disorder, characterized as impingement syndrome and claimed as secondary to a neck disorder is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from August to November 1991, October 2004 to December 2005, and from December 2009 to September 2010. He also had periods of active service in the Michigan Army National Guard. 

A June 2021 Board decision denied service connection for a neck disorder claimed as secondary to service connected low back disability and entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disorder claimed as secondary to a neck disorder. The appellant appealed that decision to the CAVC. An April 2022 CAVC Order vacated the June 2021 Board decision and remanded the matter to the Board for further adjudication.

1. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disorder claimed as secondary to a service connected low back disability is remanded.

2. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disorder, characterized as impingement syndrome and claimed as secondary to a neck disorder is remanded.

The Veteran is seeking service connection for a neck disorder claimed a secondary to his service connected low back disability and for a left shoulder disorder claimed as secondary to his neck disorder. 

As an initial matter, the Board remanded the issue of entitlement to service connection for a neck disorder in June 2019 for an opinion regarding secondary service connection. A December 2019 VA examiner opined that the Veterans neck disorder was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner stated that the Veterans had an onset of cervical spine pain on March 17, 2016 and all of his symptoms were attributable to unknown clinical diagnosis. The Board finds that the December 2019 VA examiners opinion was inadequate as it failed to provide a rationale for their opinion that the Veterans neck disorder was not secondary to his low back disability. Additionally, the VA examiner did not address the September 29, 2011 internal medicine examination which suggested the possibility that the Veterans cervical spine arthritis existed within a year of separation. 

Therefore, the Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a neck disorder.

Finally, because a decision on the remanded issue of entittlement to service connection for a neck disorder claimed as secondary to his service connected low back disability could significantly impact a decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disorder claimed as secondary to a neck disorder, the issues are inextricably intertwined.  A remand of the claims is required.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran's neck disorder is proximately due to: 

a) his active duty service, or 

b) to a service-connected disability (i.e. aggravated beyond its natural progression by service-connected disability), including his low back disability.

In providing this opinion, the examiner is asked to provide a complete rationale for the requested opinion, to include such factors as injuries in service, treatment for this disorder since service and any statements the Veteran has provided regarding this disorder.  

2. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal, including the inextricably intertwined issue of entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disorder claimed as secondary to a neck disorder.  If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond.  If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review.

 

 

B.T. KNOPE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Vample, Erica