Citation Nr: 1322225 Decision Date: 07/11/13 Archive Date: 07/18/13 DOCKET NO. 08-05 647 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease (CAD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Maxwell D. Kinman, Attorney ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Cryan, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1968 to April 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2008 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Nashville, Tennessee. The Board denied the Veteran's claim of entitlement to a heart disability, to include CAD and myocardial infarction in a May 2012 decision. Thereafter, the Veteran filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In a December 2012 Court Order, pursuant to a Joint Motion for Partial Remand, the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for CAD was remanded to the Board for additional development. The parties to the Joint Motion for Partial Remand noted that the Veteran did not intend to pursue an appeal for the denial of service connection for a heart disability to include myocardial infarction and specifically limited the claim to entitlement to service connection for CAD. Consequently, the issue currently on appeal is listed on the cover page of this decision. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center in Washington, D.C. REMAND A review of the claims file reveals that a remand is necessary before a decision on the merits of the claim can be reached. In the Joint Motion for Partial Remand, the parties agreed that the Board did not consider or address an April 2008 VA treatment report which shows that the Veteran had a history of coronary artery disease. As an initial matter, the Board notes that a Veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the Veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. Service in the Republic of Vietnam includes service in the waters offshore and service in other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116(f) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) (2012). The diseases for which service connection due to herbicide exposure is presumed include ischemic heart disease. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (2012). In this case, the Veteran's service separation document shows service in the Republic of Vietnam from September 1968 to August 1969. Consequently, he is presumed to have been exposed to herbicides during service. The Veteran was not afforded a VA examination to assess his claim for service connection. In initial service connection claims, the VA must provide a VA medical examination where there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service; (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the Veteran's service; and (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for VA to make a decision on the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (2012); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Because there is some indication that the Veteran may have a diagnosis of CAD which is a disease subject to presumptive service connection, he should be afforded a VA examination in order to determine whether a diagnosis of CAD, or other form of ischemic heart disease, is appropriate. VA outpatient treatment reports dated through October 2011 have been associated with the claims file. Because there may be outstanding VA medical records that contain information pertinent to the Veteran's claim, an attempt to obtain such records should be made. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2) (2012); Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). Any treatment records dated after October 2011 should be obtained and associated with the claims file. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's VA treatment records dated since October 2011. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination with a specialist with expertise in heart disabilities. The examiner is requested to diagnose any cardiac disabilities and specifically state whether CAD, or any other form of ischemic heart disease, is present. If any cardiac disease other than CAD is diagnosed, the examiner should provide an opinion whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) related to the Veteran's active service. The examiner must also consider the Veteran's lay statements. The rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. The examiner should review the claims folder and should note that review in the examination report. 3. Then, readjudicate the claim. If action remains adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow the appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board or the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2012). _________________________________________________ HARVEY P. ROBERTS Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2012).