Citation Nr: 25002005 Decision Date: 02/11/25 Archive Date: 02/11/25 DOCKET NO. 19-14 979 DATE: February 11, 2025 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a neck condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had service with the Georgia Army National Guard from April 1981 to July 1986, with periods of active service (September 1981 to January 1982), active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). His ACDUTRA periods were the following: September 14, 1981, to January 20, 1982; May 22, 1982, to June 5, 1982; April 30, 1983, to May 14, 1983; September 29, 1984, to October 21, 1984; and July 27, 1985, to August 10, 1985. This case returns to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) after a May 2024 Board remand for further development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a neck condition is remanded. A remand is warranted to ensure substantial compliance with the May 2024 Board decision. The Board errs when it fails to ensure substantial compliance with a Board remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board's previous remand directives regarding the issue of service connection for a neck condition. Where there has not been substantial compliance with the remand directives, another remand is required. The May 2024 Board decision issued, in relevant part, the following remand directive: "Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran's neck condition is at least as likely as not related to the documented motor vehicle accident that occurred in the line of duty on July 29, 1985, when the Veteran was thrown against the side of a 2.5-ton truck, striking his head and neck. The opinion must specifically address the Veteran's competent lay statements describing the in-service motor vehicle accident that resulted in neck pain 'for the past 28 years'" (emphasis added). In July 2024, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction obtained an etiology opinion on the neck condition. See C&P (Compensation and Pension) Examination. The examiner opined that it is less likely that degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine was incurred in or caused by service. Id., pp. 2-3. By way of rationale, the examiner cited extensively to the medical record and medical literature. The examiner noted the existence of a statement by the Veteran and referenced that the Veteran indicated that his previous injury was the origin of his cervical spine diagnosis. Id. However, the examiner did not address the Veteran's report of neck pain following the in-service motor vehicle accident and for 28 years afterward. The examiner also provided no reason why the Veteran's statement would be unreliable. Therefore, the Board finds that the July 2024 VA opinion does not substantially comply with the instruction that the examiner must specifically address the Veteran's competent lay statement describing the in-service motor vehicle accident that resulted in neck pain "for the past 28 years." Notably, the examiner also reported that they "would be resorting to mere speculation to accept or reject [the assertion that] the [V]eteran's reported injury and symptoms in service w[ere] the onset of his current neck disability." The Board may accept a VA examiner's statement that he or she cannot offer an opinion without resorting to speculation, but only after determining that this is not based on the absence of procurable information or on a particular examiner's shortcomings or general aversion to offering an opinion on issues not directly observed. For all these reasons, the Board finds that there was not substantial compliance with the May 2024 Board remand directives, and therefore the Board is obliged to remand again to ensure substantial compliance consistent with the requirements of Stegall. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran's neck condition is at least as likely as not related to the documented motor vehicle accident that occurred in the line of duty on July 29, 1985, when the Veteran was thrown against the side of a 2.5-ton truck, striking his head and neck. The opinion must specifically address the Veteran's competent lay statements describing the in-service motor vehicle accident that resulted in neck pain "for the past 28 years." See Correspondence received May 1, 2017. If there is any medical reason to accept or reject the proposition that the Veteran's reported injury and symptoms in service and thereafter represented the onset of the current disability, this should be noted. Stated another way, do the Veteran's reports about the symptoms align with how the currently diagnosed disability is known to develop or are the Veteran's reports generally inconsistent with medical knowledge or implausible? If it is not possible to provide an opinion without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical ? science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). M. C. WILSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Williams, S. 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.