Citation Nr: A26033959 Decision Date: 04/14/26 Archive Date: 04/14/26 DOCKET NO. 231010-382244 DATE: April 14, 2026 ORDER New and relevant evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of multiple joints, including cervical spine, and to that extent only, the claim is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of multiple joint, including the cervical spine, is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The evidence received since a July 1996 rating decision denying service connection for degenerative joint disease of multiple joints, including cervical spine, by itself, or in conjunction with previously considered evidence, is new and relevant. CONCLUSION OF LAW The evidence received after the July 1996 rating decision denying service connection for degenerative joint disease of multiple joints, including cervical spine, is new and relevant, and the claim for service connection is reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from May 1970 to January 1972. A September 2023 rating decision denied the service connection claim. In October 2023, VA received a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), which requested a hearing docket review of the appeal by the Board. Consequently, this appeal comes before the?Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from the September 2023 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)?Veterans Benefits Administration Regional Office (RO) which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).? On December 11, 2025, the Veteran, through the authorized representative, withdrew the hearing request. Accordingly, the Board considers the request for a?hearing?to be withdrawn and will adjudicate the claims accordingly.? 38?C.F.R. §?20.704. As the current appeal stems from the Veteran's selection of the hearing option, this review will be based upon the evidence submitted to VA at the time of the September 2023 AOJ decision on appeal, any evidence submitted on the date the Veteran's hearing withdrawal was received by VA on December 11, 2025, and any evidence submitted within 90 days after the withdrawal of the hearing request. The Board will not seek additional evidence on behalf of the Veteran as part of the review. This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900; 38 U.S.C. § 7107. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran has separate appeals related to separate rating decisions pending. However, those claims are subject to adjudication in a different decision. 1. Whether new and relevant evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of multiple joints, including cervical spine. A claimant may request re-adjudication of a previously denied claim, if new and relevant evidence is presented or secured. VA will readjudicate the claim taking into consideration all of the evidence of record. New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers. The term relevant evidence means evidence that tends to prove or disprove a matter in issue. The standard shall not be construed to impose a higher evidentiary threshold than the new and material evidence standard that was in effect prior to the date of the enactment of the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). 38 U.S.C. § 5108. The new and material evidence issue has been recharacterized to include the new evidentiary standards under the AMA. New and relevant evidence is a lower standard for reopening a previously denied claim. Since the July 1996 rating decision denying service connection for degenerative joint disease of multiple joints, including cervical spine, the record contains additional development concerning the claimed cervical spine disability including additional lay statements, and medical records, including a new private etiological opinion. As the Veteran's assertions are presumed to be credible for the limited purpose of attempting to reopen a previously denied claim, the new lay statements and medical evidence tend to prove or disprove a matter at issue with respect to the claim for entitlement to service connection. Therefore, the Board finds that new and relevant evidence has been received. Therefore, readjudication of the claim of entitlement to service connection is warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is remanded. Although the Board regrets the delay, additional development is needed prior to further disposition of the claim of entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability.?? VA's statutory duty to assist the Veteran includes the duty to conduct a thorough examination so that the evaluation of the claimed disability will be a fully informed one. Green v.?Derwinski,?1?Vet. App.?121 (1991);?Snuffer v. Gober, 10?Vet. App. 400 (1997). Assistance by VA includes providing a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when an examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision on a claim. 38?U.S.C. §?5103A;?38?C.F.R. §?3.159.?? The Veteran has claimed that a cervical spine is the result of or began during active service. A September 2023 rating decision found that the Veteran has a current cervical spondylosis without myelopathy diagnosis. The Board is bound by this favorable finding. In support of the claim, the Veteran has submitted a December 2025 private opinion. The December 2025 examiner diagnosed cervical spondylosis and degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine. The December 2025 private examiner opined that, when the totality of the evidence is considered, including the nature of the Veteran's service duties, the documented service injury, and the known mechanisms of cervical degeneration, the evidence supported that the current cervical spine condition was at least as likely as not related to service. The Board finds the December 2025 private examination opinion to be based on an inaccurate factual premise, and as a result, to be inadequate for VA purposes. The examiner stated that a current cervical spine disability was at least as likely as not, in part, related to an injury sustained during active service. However, the Board notes that the service medical records do not show any neck injury or complaints during active service. Therefore, the Board finds the December 2025 private examination relied on a?factually inaccurate?premise that the Veteran had neck complaints in service. As a result, the Board finds?the December 2025 private examination report to be incomplete. Here, the Board notes that the Veteran's November 1971 separation examination noted normal spine, head, face, neck, and scalp with the Veteran explicitly stating that he was in good health. The Veteran last underwent VA examination in April 1996, which noted neck pain since four years prior. The record now shows cervical spine diagnosis and alleged potential causation related to service. However, the Veteran has not been provided adequate VA examination which addresses any relationship between the claimed disabilities and service. That is a pre-decisional duty to assist error. Therefore, the Board finds that a VA opinion to determine any relationship between the claimed disabilities and active service should be scheduled. In approaching the examinations, the Veteran is reminded that the duty to assist is not a one-way street. A Veteran is required to cooperate with the examiner's efforts to evaluate the nature and current severity of symptomology. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). The Veteran is notified that it is the Veteran's responsibility to report for any scheduled examination and to cooperate in the development of these claims. The consequences for failure to cooperate with or report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. The Veteran is notified that failure to cooperate during the requested VA examination may result in an adverse determination. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655; Connolly v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 566 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to obtain an opinion regarding the nature and etiology any cervical spine disabilities, to include any pain resulting in functional loss. The examiner must review the claims file, including this Remand, and should indicate that review in the report. For each cervical spine disability diagnosed, to include any pain resulting in functional loss that constitutes a disability, the examiner must opine whether it is as likely as not that each cervical spine disability is etiologically related to active service or any event, disease, or injury during service, including whether any cervical spine disability (1) began during active service, (2) manifested as arthritis within one year after separation from service, or (3) was noted during service with continuity of the same symptomatology since service. Please cite to any evidence to support a finding of arthritis within one year following separation from service. The examiner is specifically asked to address whether it is as likely as not that the physical nature of service, to include marching, heavy lifting, and vibrations felt while driving, contributed to or caused any cervical spine disabilities. A clearly stated rationale for each opinion must be provided and cannot be based solely on the lack of a record of the claimed disability in service. Harvey P. Roberts Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Mondesir, 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.