Citation Nr: 25003993 Decision Date: 03/25/25 Archive Date: 03/25/25 DOCKET NO. 17-45 736 DATE: March 25, 2025 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from April 1973 to August 1973 and from September 1974 to March 1977. This matter originally came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which, in pertinent part, denied service connection for degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine. The Veteran submitted a notice of disagreement (NOD) in December 2016. In August 2017, the RO issued a Statement of the Case (SOC). VA received the Veteran's Substantive Appeal (VA Form 9) in August 2017, perfecting the appeal and requesting a hearing before the Board. The Veteran appeared before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a videoconference hearing in January 2021. In March 2021 and October 2021, the Board remanded the matter for additional evidentiary development. In October 2022, the Board, in pertinent part, denied service connection for degenerative disc disease and arthritis of the cervical spine. The Veteran appealed the Board's October 2022 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In May 2024, the Court issued a memorandum decision vacating the portion of the Board's October 2022 decision denying service connection for a cervical spine disability and remanding the matter to the Board for additional development and readjudication. The Board notes that the Veteran was represented before the Court by attorney Sean A. Ravin. In August 2024, following the Court's memorandum decision, Mr. Ravin filed an application for attorney's fees and expenses in the amount of $15,401. VA's General Counsel did not contest the motion for the sole purpose of avoiding further litigation and the costs related thereto. Thus, in a November 2024 order, the Court granted Mr. Ravin's application and awarded fees in the amount sought. Mr. Ravin has elected not to continue his representation of the Veteran before VA. Thus, the Veteran remains represented by the veterans service organization listed above. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability. The Veteran contends that his cervical spine disability is the result of an in-service injury to his neck. In a May 2024 memorandum decision, the Court found that a December 2021 VA medical opinion, relied upon by the Board in denying the claim in its October 2022 decision, was inadequate. The Court held that "[b]ecause the December 2021 VA medical opinion is predicated entirely on a lack of objective medical evidence of a cervical spine disability, without accounting for Mr. [REDACTED] lay reports of experiencing chronic neck symptoms since service, the Court finds that it is inadequate." While the Board regrets the delay, given this holding by the Court, a remand is now necessary to obtain an adequate medical opinion. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a medical examination for the purpose of obtaining an opinion regarding the claim of service connection for a cervical spine disability. After examining the Veteran and reviewing the record, the examiner should provide an opinion, with supporting rationale, as to the following: Is it at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's current cervical spine disability had its inception during service or is otherwise causally related to an in-service disease or injury, to include an in-service report of neck pain following an injury in October 1974? (Continued on the next page) ? In providing the requested opinion, the examiner should consider the Veteran's description of the in-service injury and symptoms as well as post-service symptoms. 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? The Board has not made a credibility determination pending the examiner's opinion. K. Conner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Kleponis, Kevin 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.