BVA Case 22-2306: Back

Silberstein , through counsel,appeals a December 29,2021,Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)decision in which the Board denied service connection for (1)asthma,manifested by shortness of breath,and (2)degenerative arthritis of the spine.

Because the Board failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for the part of the decision denying entitlement to service connection for asthma,manifested by shortness of breath, the Court will vacate this part of the Board's decision and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

With regard to the back disability,the Board found the September 2016 spine examination insufficient to decide the appeal because the examiner did not consider the lay evidence of onset and continuity of symptoms since service.

With regard to the respiratory disability,the Board determined that the appellant provided credible evidence of symptoms of a current respiratory disability, and the service treatment records showed x-ray evidence of calcifications of the lung in service.

The examiner found no central canal stenosis and further found no documentation of injury to [the appellant's]back during service such as [from]falling down a ladder, being knocked about the ship, or being smashed between a pallet and a railing that is significant enough to establish a nexus from service to later events including lumbar spine surgery 25 years later.

Specifically,the Board found the May 2021 opinion inadequate because the examiner stated that he found no documentation of an in-service injury and yet failed to consider the appellant's military records that showed treatment of back pain in October 1963.

Because when rendering his opinion,the examiner did not consider these instances of reported pain in service,or the appellant's assertion that his back pain began in service,the Board remanded the claim for an addendum opinion.

Regarding his respiratory condition,the Board found that the May 2021 VA examiner did not provide a rationale for his statement that he would not expect the appellant's exposure to chemical or lead paint to result in his asthma.