Citation Nr: 18144183 Decision Date: 10/24/18 Archive Date: 10/23/18 DOCKET NO. 16-31 313 DATE: October 24, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right thumb disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, claimed as secondary to syphilis, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1956 to July 1958. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions issued in December 2014 and May 2015 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. These matters were previously before the Board, and, in June 2017, the Board denied the claims. In June 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) vacated the June 2017 Board decision as to these issues and remanded them back to the Board for further consideration. Entitlement to service connection for a right thumb disability, a back disability, coronary artery disease, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus is remanded. At issue is whether the Veteran is entitled to service connection for a right thumb disability, a back disability, coronary artery disease, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. As previously noted, these matters were previously before the Board, but the Court vacated the Board denials and remanded the matters for further development in June 2018. Specifically, the Court noted that – after VA was unable to obtain treatment records from a VA medical center – VA failed to make a determination of whether the records sought do not exist or whether further attempts to obtain them would be futile, and that VA failed to provide the Veteran written or oral notice of that fact. Therefore, this matter must be remanded in order to accomplish the above development in substantial compliance with the Court’s remand instructions. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Additionally, the Court found that VA failed to take into consideration an in-service incurrence potentially related to the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus when it found that there was no indication that the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus was related to service. Therefore, this matter must be remanded for a new VA examination. See Stegall; see also McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Determine whether or not VA treatment records from VAMC Pittsburgh ranging from 1970 to 2000 exist or whether further attempts to obtain these documents would be futile. 2. If the records do not exist or further attempts to obtain them would be futile, then provide the Veteran and his representative oral or written notice of this fact and memorialize such notice in the claims file. If the records do exist or further attempts to obtain them might be fruitful, then attempt to obtain them and associate any such records with the claims file. Do not return this case to the Board unless either the treatment records from VAMC Pittsburgh ranging from 1970 to 2000 are associated with the claims file or the Veteran and his representative are notified (and such notice is documented in the claims file) that the records do not exist or that further attempts would be futile. 3. Arrange to provide the Veteran with a VA medical examination in order to determine the time of onset of the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus. (a) Following review of the claims file and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that a medical nexus exists between a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and an in-service incurrence to include a July 22, 1957, lab test result which indicated that the Veteran manifested a fasting blood glucose of 100. (b) The examiner should also opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran manifested diabetes mellitus to a degree of at least 10 percent within one (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) year of his July 1958 service separation or that his diabetes mellitus is otherwise related to active service. BARBARA B. COPELAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD David R. Seaton, Associate Counsel