Citation Nr: 23007635 Decision Date: 02/07/23 Archive Date: 02/07/23 DOCKET NO. 18-22 537 DATE: February 7, 2023 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from June 1992 to June 1996. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in August 2022. A transcript of that hearing is of record. Entitlement to service connection for a back condition is remanded. The Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination in connection with his claim for service connection for a back disability. The Board notes that the Veteran has been diagnosed with degenerative arthritis, IVDS, and spinal stenosis of the cervical and lumbar spine. Therefore, a current disability is not at issue. The Veteran has indicated his spinal issues began in service as due to several falls in 1995 and extensive wearing of air packs and heavy gear. The record indicates that the claimed disability may have had its onset in service. The Board acknowledges the Veteran has provided two positive private nexus opinions. However, the opinions are inadequate as neither is accompanied by a rationale. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Therefore, the Board finds that the record is insufficient to deny or grant the claim for service connection for a back condition. Accordingly, the Board finds that remand is necessary for a VA examination. See McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should ensure that the complete VA treatment record has been uploaded to the electronic claims file. 2. Thereafter, the AOJ should request a VA medical opinion to determine the etiology of the Veteran's spinal disabilities including degenerative arthritis, IVDS, and spinal stenosis of the cervical and lumbar spine. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file. The examiner should state whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's spinal disabilities are causally or etiologically related to his military service. The Board notes the Veteran has been diagnosed with arthritis of the cervical and lumbar spine. As such, the examiner should also specifically address continuity of symptomatology. The examiner must consider the Veteran's lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of his symptoms. The Veteran is competent to attest to matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, including events that occurred during service and observable symptoms. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. The examiner should specifically discuss the relevant medical evidence prior to the Veteran's August 2007 on the job injury and September 2012 car accident including private and VA treatment records from 2005 to 2007. The term "at least as likely as not" does not mean within the realm of medical possibility, but rather that the medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of conclusion as it is to find against it. A clear rationale for all opinions would be helpful, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. Because it is important "that each disability is viewed about its history," 38 C.F.R. § 4.1, copies of all pertinent records in the Veteran's claims file, or in the alternative, the claims file, must be made available to the examiner for review. 3. After ensuring completion of the above development, the AOJ should readjudicate the claim. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Sherman 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.