Citation Nr: 18140866 Decision Date: 10/09/18 Archive Date: 10/09/18 DOCKET NO. 14-34 394A DATE: October 9, 2018 ORDER Service connection for hepatitis B is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left leg disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder is remanded. FINDING OF FACT It is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s hepatitis B had its onset during service and/or is otherwise etiologically related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for hepatitis B have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103(a), 5103A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.306, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service from February 1981 to April 1989. In June 2018, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at the Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The Board notes that the Veteran’s original service connection claims were for a right leg disorder, as well as for a back and right knee disorder, to include as secondary to his right leg disorder. However, the Veteran testified that this was a mistake and that he intended to file a claim for a left leg disorder, as well as for a back and right knee disorder, to include as secondary to his left leg disorder. The Board also acknowledges that the overwhelming medical evidence indicates that the Veteran had a left leg injury during service with post-service left leg, back, and right knee complaints that may be related to his in-service injury. In the Board’s view, the evidence of record was readily available to establish that the claim, as originally written, was in error. Therefore, to ensure fairness to the veteran, the claim has been recharacterized and will be developed as such. Service Connection Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis B The Veteran asserts that he acquired hepatitis B after receiving a blood transfusion during active duty service. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. After a review of the evidence, the Board concludes that the Veteran’s current hepatitis B had its onset during service and/or is otherwise etiologically related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (a), (d), 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. In this case, it is apparent that the Veteran’s hepatitis B had its onset in service. As an initial matter, the Veteran’s November 1980 enlistment examination does not reflect a diagnosis of hepatitis B. Similarly, an April 1985 blood test was negative for hepatitis B. However, in December 1986, the service treatment records reflect that the Veteran sustained a significant injury to his left leg that required a blood transfusion. Shortly thereafter, in-service blood tests from 1987 and 1988 reflect that the Veteran was positive for hepatitis B. Additionally, the post-service evidence, including his current VA treatment records, indicate that he still has a current diagnosis of hepatitis B. The Board notes that the negative medical evidence includes the opinions from the February 2012 VA examiner, who stated that he “was unable to speculate” if his hepatitis B was “related to events that occurred in military service.” Nevertheless, the Board finds these opinions to be less probative given that the evidence, as previously discussed, is sufficient to demonstrate that the Veteran did not have hepatitis B prior to service, and was first diagnosed with the disorder during service. Indeed, had hepatitis B been identified, it is unclear whether he would have been accepted into service. As such, the Board finds that the evidence is in relative equipoise to support service connection, and therefore service connection for hepatitis B is warranted.   REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left leg disorder is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder is remanded. As previously discussed, the Veteran’s service treatment records note that the Veteran’s current left leg, right knee, and back disorders may be related to a significant left leg injury he sustained during service. Therefore, the RO should be afforded the opportunity to develop these claims, including providing the Veteran with a new VA examination, and adjudicate the issues. Additionally, the Board observes that the Veteran indicated that he received treatment shortly after service for the disorders on appeal. Therefore, on remand, the RO should attempt to obtain any and all relevant outstanding medical records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any and all treatment records from any VA Medical Center in which the Veteran has received medical treatment since 1989. All efforts made to obtain this information should be documented in the claims file. If these records are unable to be obtained, a formal finding of unavailability should be prepared and associated with the claims file. If the Veteran has received additional private treatment, he should be afforded an appropriate opportunity to submit those records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his left leg, right knee, and back disorders. If the examiner determines that the Veteran’s left leg disorder is related to service, he or she should also opine as to whether or not his right knee and back disorders are secondary to and/or aggravated (i.e., worsened) by his left leg disorder. 3. Readjudicate the appeals as have been recharacterized above. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Meyer, Associate Counsel