Citation Nr: 18143050 Decision Date: 10/17/18 Archive Date: 10/17/18 DOCKET NO. 13-33 559 DATE: October 17, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hypercholesterolemia is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II (DMII) is remanded. FINDING OF FACT Hypercholesterolemia is a laboratory finding and not a chronic disability for which VA disability benefits may be awarded. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for hypercholesterolemia have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103(a), 5103A (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1969 to April 1971. In September 2017, the Board remanded the appeal to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to schedule the Veteran for a Board hearing. The AOJ scheduled a hearing for May 2018, and sent correspondence to the Veteran notifying him of this scheduled hearing in March 2018 and again in April 2018. The Veteran did not show for the scheduled hearing and has not provided good cause for failing to appear. As such, a pending hearing request is no longer before the Board. Entitlement to service connection for hypercholesterolemia Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (2017). Generally, in order to prove service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See, e.g., Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Veteran maintains that he has hypercholesterolemia, or high cholesterol, as a result of service. Post-service treatment records reveal that the Veteran has been diagnosed with hypercholesterolemia. See CAPRI records dated in February and March 2005. The Veteran, however, does not meet the preliminary requirement for service connection, namely showing of a current disability. By way of reference, “hyperlipidemia” is defined as “a general term for elevated concentrations of any or all of the lipids in the plasma, such as...hypercholesterolemia, and so on.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY 903 (31st Ed. 2007). In turn, “hypercholesterolemia” is defined as “excessive cholesterol in the blood.” Id., at 899. In other words, hypercholesterolemia (i.e., an elevated or high cholesterol level) is merely a laboratory finding, not a ratable disability for VA compensation purposes. The term “disability,” as used for VA purposes, refers to impairment of earning capacity and Congress specifically limits entitlement to service connection for diseases or injuries that have resulted in a disability. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448. In this case, there is no evidence showing that the Veteran's hypercholesterolemia has resulted in a disability. See Brammer, 3 Vet. App. 223; and Gilpin v. Brown, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998) [service connection may not be granted unless a current disability exists]. A “current disability” means a disability shown by competent medical evidence to exist. Chelte v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 268 (1997). In light of the above discussion, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for hypercholesterolemia, and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. As such, the appeal is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for COPD, to include as secondary to service-connected DMII, is remanded. The Veteran contends that he has COPD that is secondary to his service-connected DMII. The Veteran was afforded VA examination for his COPD in December 2009. The examiner opined that the Veteran had COPD by history, but that it was not caused or aggravated by DMII. The rationale the examiner provided was that this was based on a “review of medical literature.” The December 2009 VA examiner did not provide a clear conclusion with supporting data, neither was a reasoned medical explanation connecting COPD to DMII provided, either by causation or aggravation. As such, the December 2009 VA examination is inadequate with respect to the Veteran’s COPD. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 301 (2008) (stating that a medical examination report must contain not only clear conclusions with supporting data, but also a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two); see also Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007) (stating that a medical opinion must support its conclusion with an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions). Given the deficiencies described above, the Board finds that this issue must be returned for a new VA opinion. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for VA examination. The claims file should be made available to, and reviewed by the examiner. Following a review of the claims file, the examiner should offer the following opinion: a) Please confirm whether the Veteran has a current disability of COPD. Please consider December 2009 VA examination indication that he was diagnosed with COPD 4 to 5 years prior, and that he was treated with an inhaled bronchodilator. b) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s current COPD disability began in service, or is otherwise the result of a disease or injury in service? c) Notwithstanding the above, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s current COPD was caused or aggravated beyond its natural progression by his service-connected DMII? The opinion must address both causation and aggravation, as these are two separate inquiries. The rationale for any opinion offered should be provided. 3. Readjudicate the appeal. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD I. Warren, Associate Counsel