Citation Nr: A26025035 Decision Date: 03/19/26 Archive Date: 03/19/26 DOCKET NO. 220521-244706 DATE: March 19, 2026 ORDER New and relevant evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for degenerative arthritis (DA) and degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the lumbar spine. To this extent only, the Veteran's claim is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of kidney surgery, to include as secondary to the lumbar spine disability is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The March 2022 VA examination and medical opinion is new and relevant evidence. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for DA and DDD of the lumbar spine have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 3.2501. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served active duty in the U.S. Army from November 1983 to November 1985. This case comes before the Board on appeal of an April 2022 AMA rating decision. In the May 19, 2022 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on December 10, 2025. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2022 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran [or representative] at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801. However, because the Board is remanding the claims listed above, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of those claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii). New and Relevant Evidence VA regulations provide that a claimant who disagrees with a prior VA decision may file a supplemental claim any time after the AOJ issues notice of a decision, regardless of whether the claim is pending or has become finally adjudicated. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If new and relevant evidence is presented or secured with respect to the supplemental claim, the AOJ will readjudicate the claim taking into consideration all of the evidence of record. If new and relevant evidence is not presented or secured, the AOJ will issue a decision finding that there was insufficient evidence to readjudicate the claim. In determining whether new and relevant evidence is presented or secured, VA will consider any VA treatment records reasonably identified by the claimant and any evidence received by VA after VA issued notice of a decision on the claim and while the evidentiary record was closed. Id. New evidence is evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators. Relevant evidence is information that tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue in a claim. As the definition of "relevant" does not require that the evidence relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim or raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim; "new and relevant" evidence is a lower standard than the "new and material" evidence standard. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. Upon receipt of a substantially complete supplemental claim, VA's duty to assist in the gathering of evidence under § 3.159 of this part is triggered and includes any such assistance that may help secure new and relevant evidence as defined in paragraph (a) of 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501 to complete the supplemental claim application. Id. Whether new and relevant evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for degenerative arthritis (DA) and degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the lumbar spine Here, the Veteran contends that the AOJ received new and relevant evidence to reopen his claim of service connection for a lumbar spine disability. Based on the record, the Board agrees. At the outset, the Veteran's claim was originally denied in December 2015, then again in September 2021. At that time, the AOJ explained that the VA examiner did not find a nexus between the Veteran's in-service back injury and his current lumbar spine disability. The AOJ added that the evidence received since the prior decision was not new and relevant as it did not refute the basis of the denial from the December 2015 AOJ decision. Following the September 2021 AOJ decision, new and relevant evidence has been identified to reopen the claim on appeal. Specifically, in March 2022, the Veteran underwent a VA examination and medical opinion regarding his lumbar spine disability. The examination revealed that the Veteran had DA, DDD, and a thoracic strain. The March 2022 VA examination and medical opinion is "new" as it was not previously before the AOJ during the September 2021 rating decision. Likewise, the evidence is "relevant" as it tends to prove a matter at issue. Moreover, according to the M21-1, "'relevant evidence' includes evidence that 'affirms findings previously deemed favorable to the claimant,' and that it is not required that it 'prove a previously unsubstantiated matter.'" M21-1, pt. X., subpt. ii., ch. 2., sec. A.2.d. As the evidence submitted affirmed the favorable findings that the Veteran had diagnoses of DA and DDD of the lumbar spine, the evidence is relevant. Accordingly, as the evidence submitted is new and relevant with respect to the Veteran's claim of service connection for DA and DDD of the lumbar spine, the claim is reopened. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of kidney surgery, to include as secondary to the lumbar spine disability is remanded. The Board has found that the claim of service connection for a lumbar spine disability warrants readjudication on the merits based on VA's receipt of new and relevant evidence. Thus, a remand for initial adjudication on the merits is necessary, as the Board is prevented from doing so in the first instance. The Veteran has a procedural right to have one review of his appeal by the Secretary under 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (a), and AMA amendments do not specifically revoke that right. Hickson v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 394 (2010). Thus, the Board is now required to remand the claim so that the AOJ can carry out its statutory duties. Additionally, the claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of kidney surgery is inextricably intertwined with the issue of entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability, as the Veteran contends that his residuals of kidney surgery is secondary to the medications taken for his lumbar spine disability, which is being remanded for readjudication. Therefore, a final decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for residuals of kidney surgery cannot be rendered now. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991) (two issues are "inextricably intertwined" when they are so closely tied together that a final decision on one issue cannot be rendered until a decision on the other issue has been rendered). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Adjudicate the underlying claim of service connection for a lumbar spine disability, including performing requisite duties to assist. 2. Adjudicate the intertwined claim. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board I. Umo, 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.