Citation Nr: 18144966 Decision Date: 10/25/18 Archive Date: 10/25/18 DOCKET NO. 16-03 662 DATE: October 25, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hyperlipidemia is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertensive cardiovascular disease is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral deafness is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right arm condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left arm condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right elbow condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left elbow condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right carpal tunnel syndrome is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left carpal tunnel syndrome is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity peripheral neuropathy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for generalized anxiety disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot condition is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) due to the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities is remanded. FINDING OF FACT Hyperlipidemia is a laboratory test result that is not, in and of itself, a disability for VA compensation purposes. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for hyperlipidemia have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from October 1955 to September 1957. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from September 2015 and June 2017 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service connection may be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in active military service. This means that the facts establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed.Cir.2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff’d per curiam, 78 F. 3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table). The Veteran seeks service connection for hyperlipidemia. A June 2014 private treatment record shows a finding of hyperlipidemia. The Board notes that the Veteran has not contended, nor does the medical evidence of record show, that he has an additional disability manifested by or associated with hyperlipidemia. Hyperlipidemia in and of itself is not a “disability” for which VA compensation benefits are awarded. Congress specifically limits entitlement to service-connected disease or injury where such cases have resulted in a disability and in the absence of a proof of present disability there can be no claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The term “disability” as used for VA purposes refers to impairment of earning capacity due to disease, injury, or defect, rather than the disease, injury, or defect itself. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995). Elevated cholesterol is a laboratory finding and not a disability, in and of itself, for which VA compensation benefits are payable. See 61 Fed. Reg. 20440, 20445 (May 7, 1996) (Diagnoses of hyperlipidemia, elevated triglycerides, and elevated cholesterol are actually laboratory results and are not, in and of themselves, disabilities. They are, therefore, not appropriate entities for the rating schedule to address). There is also no evidence of record suggesting the Veteran’s hyperlipidemia causes an impairment of earning capacity. As hyperlipidemia is a laboratory result and does not represent a disability, the Board finds that service connection must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. REASONS FOR REMAND The December 2015 Statement of the Case (SOC) and November 2017 SOC show outpatient treatment records from San Juan Medical Center from August 2008 through September 2017 were reviewed. The Veteran also contends that he received treatment from Dr. Manuel Santiago from 1961 through 1971 and Dr. Sara Vincente. He notes that Dr. Manuel Santiago has since passed away. See July 2017 statement. An undated certificate from the Caguas Mental Health Center indicates that the Veteran had been a patient since 1974. These records have not been associated with the claims file. As such, a remand is required to obtain these records and associate them with the claims file. The Board acknowledges that the service treatment and personnel records were destroyed in a fire-related incident. See Department of Veterans Affairs Request for Information. When there is evidence that a Veteran’s service records have been lost or destroyed, VA has a heightened duty to consider the applicability of the benefit of the doubt rule, to assist a claimant in developing a claim, and to explain its findings and conclusions. Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46, 51 (1996); O’Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 369-70 (2005). In regard to the Veteran’s claim for service connection for tinnitus, a June 2014private medical report and a November 2017 opinion diagnose tinnitus and provide positive nexus opinions. However, no rationale is provided for either opinion. Moreover, the November 2017 opinion appears to be internally inconsistent as the provider checks that the Veteran’s tinnitus was relative to his military service and that he was “unable to determine.” Accordingly, a VA medical opinion is warranted to determine if the Veteran’s tinnitus is related to his service. In regard to the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a lumbar spine condition, in a statement received in July 2017, the Veteran contends that he left service in 1957 due to an accident while working in construction engineering. Specifically, he contends that hurt his back when he tried to pick up a wheelbarrow filled with cement and fell on his back. He reports that he was treated at Harbor Barracks Hospital and had several therapy sessions for his back. He also contends that continued treatment for his back in 1958 and 1961 through 1975. The claims file contains a March 1988 private treatment record showing a diagnosis of degenerative disc disease of the lumbosacral spine. Further, a June 2014 private medical report related the Veteran’s diagnosis of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine to his service, but provides no rationale. A VA examination has not been provided in regard to the Veteran’s lumbar spine condition. As the Board finds that there is sufficient indication that a current lumbar spine condition may be associated with the Veteran’s active service, a VA examination is warranted. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The Veteran submitted an Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability in April 2015 contending that his service-connected conditions prevent him from securing or following any substantially gainful occupation. Currently, the Veteran does not have a service-connected condition. Accordingly, the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to TDIU due to his service-connected disabilities must be remanded as it is inextricably intertwined with his pending service connection claims and a decision by the Board on the Veteran’s TDIU claim would, at this point, be premature. See Tyrues v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 166, 177 (2009) (en banc). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate with the claims file all VA treatment records, to include VA treatment records from San Juan Medical Center dated August 2008 through September 2017. 2. Contact the Veteran and request that he identify any additional, outstanding VA and private treatment records related to his claims. After obtaining the necessary authorization forms from the Veteran, obtain any pertinent records and associate them with claims file. Any negative response should be in writing and associated with the claims file. This request should specifically include treatment records from Dr. Manuel Santiago from 1961 through 1971, Dr. Sara Vincente and Caguas Mental Health Center. 3. After the above development has been completed and any outstanding records have been obtained, obtain a VA medical opinion to determine whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s tinnitus is related to or had its onset during service. The examiner must acknowledge the positive private opinions of record. All opinions expressed must be accompanied by supporting rationale. 4. After the above development has been completed and any outstanding records have been obtained, afford the Veteran a VA back examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed lumbar spine condition. The claims file should be made available and reviewed by the examiner. All indicated studies should be performed and all findings should be reported in detail. The examiner must identify all lumbar spine disabilities found to be present and opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any current lumbar spine is related to or had its onset during service. The examiner must acknowledge the Veteran’s lay statement regarding his back injury in service and the June 2014 positive nexus opinion. All opinions expressed must be accompanied by supporting rationale. 5. Then, after conducting any further development deemed warranted, including any additional VA examinations, readjudicate the issues on appeal. KRISTY L. ZADORA Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Samuelson, Counsel