Citation Nr: A26017289 Decision Date: 02/26/26 Archive Date: 02/26/26 DOCKET NO. 251115-616741 DATE: February 26, 2026 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for lumbosacral strain including spinal stenosis, scoliosis, retrolisthesis, and lumbar laminectomy with fusion, claimed as back injury, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from August 1967 to May 1969. In the November 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the November 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. However, because the Board is remanding the Veteran's claim any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of this claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii). As a preliminary matter, VA regulations allow veterans to switch AMA dockets by completing and submitting a new VA Form 10182 within 60 days from when the Board receives the original VA Form 10182, or within one year from the date the AOJ mails notice of the decision on appeal, whichever is later, unless (1) a Veteran has already submitted evidence or testimony as described in 38 C.F.R. §§ 23.302 and 20.303, or (2) the Veteran or their representative has requested a waiver of the ability to request to switch dockets during this timeframe. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.202. Essentially, absent a waiver, the Board may not decide an appeal prior to the expiration of the period in which the Veteran is allowed to switch AMA dockets. See Williams v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 305 (2024). However, in this case, the Board finds that the request for the case to be advanced on the docket (AOD) constitutes a waiver of the Veteran's right to request a docket switch. Thus, the assignment of AOD status is sufficient for the Board to proceed with an adjudication in this appeal. See Clark v. O'Rourke, 30 Vet. App. 92, 97-98 (2018) (allowing waiver of a right to a particular time period for submission of evidence to be waived). Service Connection - Low Back Disability The Board finds this matter must be remanded to cure a pre-decisional duty to assist error. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a). When VA provides a VA examination or obtains a VA medical opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The Veteran attended a VA back conditions examination in November 2025. The November 2025 examiner opined that the Veteran's low back disability was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the Veteran's service. In support of this conclusion, the examiner stated that there is insufficient medical evidence to establish causation or chronicity with military service. The Board finds this medical opinion to be inadequate. The Veteran reported that he injured his back during mortar/rocket attack while serving in Vietnam. The examiner failed to discuss the Veteran's lay statements regarding the onset of his injury. A medical examiner is not free to simply ignore a veteran's lay statements recounting symptoms or events and base his or her opinion that there is no relationship to service on the absence of in-service corroborating medical records. Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007); see also Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As such, the Board finds a remand is necessary to obtain an addendum opinion to address the etiology of the Veteran's low back disability. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum medical opinion by a VA examiner with sufficient expertise to address the etiology of the Veteran's low back disability. All pertinent evidence of record must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. Following a review of the relevant records and lay statements, the examiner should state whether the Veteran's claimed low back disability at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) originated during his period of active service or is otherwise etiologically related to his active service. The examiner should specifically address the Veteran's statement that he injured his back during a mortar/rocket attack while serving in Vietnam. For purpose of this opinion, the examiner should assume that the Veteran is a reliable historian and must not ignore the Veteran's competent reports of in-service injuries, or of symptoms experienced during active service and since. In this regard, the examiner must discuss and consider the Veteran's competent lay statements. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all proffered opinions. If an examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If an examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiners should identify the additional information that is needed. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Nestander, Jessica 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.