Citation Nr: 22051150 Decision Date: 09/08/22 Archive Date: 09/08/22 DOCKET NO. 15-00 155A DATE: September 8, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the United States Army from March 1976 to March 1979. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2014 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board remanded this matter for further development in October 2018, and in January 2021, denied the Veteran's claim. The Veteran appealed the January 2021 Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a September 2021 order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) filed by the parties and remanded the matter for actions consistent with the JMR. To comply with the Court-granted JMR, the Board remanded this claim for additional development in a February 2022 decision. Regrettably, the Board is again remanding these claims for additional development to ensure compliance with the Court-granted JMR. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability. The JMR agreed that the Board erred by relying on an inadequate VA examination. Specifically, the JMR agreed that the VA examination failed to discuss and consider the Veteran's statements that he experienced pain during service caused by carrying heavy gear and that his pain has gotten progressively worse since service. Pursuant to the February 2022 remand, the Veteran was provided an additional VA examination for back conditions in May 2022. While the examiner did discuss the Veteran's contentions regarding carrying heavy gear, the examiner did not address the Veteran's contentions and statements regarding the progression of his symptoms following separation from service. Thus, the Board finds that the May 2022 VA examination was not adequate and that a remand is required to obtain addendum medical opinion. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 31 (once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a claim for service connection, even if not statutorily obligated to do so, it must provide an adequate one). These matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's updated VA treatment records and associate them with the evidence of record. If possible, the Veteran himself should submit these records (if any), and any other new treatment for this problem to expedite the case. Any assistance on this issue would be appreciated. 2. Obtain an examination and opinion from an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's back disability. Specifically, the examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that his current back disability had its onset during service, manifest within one year of separation from service, or is otherwise related to active service. The examiner should consider and discuss the Veteran's claims that he experienced pain during service caused by carrying heavy gear and that his pain has gotten progressively worse since service. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms and that his reports must be considered in formulating the requested opinions. If the Veteran's reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. A complete rationale for any opinions expressed should be provided. The report should set forth all complaints, findings, and diagnoses relating to the Veteran's back condition. The report should provide a rationale for all conclusions reached. If the requested opinions cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge, i.e., no one could respond given medical science and the known facts, or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner, i.e., additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training. 3. After completion of the aforementioned, the AOJ should readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, then the AOJ should provide the Veteran with a supplemental statement of the case and afford him the appropriate opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, the case must be returned to the Board for further appellate review. John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. VanValkenburg 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.