Citation Nr: 18145864 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/30/18 DOCKET NO. 17-04 710 DATE: October 30, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C is remanded. REFERRED The issues of entitlement to Dependency and Indemnity Compensation and burial benefits were raised in May 2018 statements and are referred to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for adjudication. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from June 1974 to June 1978. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) following a May 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran died in May 2018. In July 2018, the Board dismissed the Veteran’s appeal. The appellant is the Veteran’s surviving spouse and was accepted as the Veteran’s substituted claimant later in July 2018 after the Board dismissal. The Veteran received VA treatment, and the RO last obtained VA treatment records in January 2017. Some of the VA treatment records were obtained after a December 2016 statement of the case, and the RO did not issue a supplemental statement of the case considering this additional evidence even though the additional evidence addressed the existence of a low back disorder. The RO should obtain any additional VA treatment records and any additional treatment records from Cape Fear Center for Digestive Disorders and UNC Health Care. The Veteran asserted that his hepatitis C was due to three in-service factors: air-gun injections to administer vaccinations, sexual contact, and exposure to blood when working as an aviation structural mechanic due to sailors regularly cutting their hands while doing delicate mechanical work. A VA medical opinion is necessary to determine whether the hepatitis C is related to active service. In an October 2018 appellant’s brief, the representative argued that an April 2015 VA examiner did not consider the Veteran’s lay testimony in rendering a medical nexus opinion on hearing loss. The Board notes that the Veteran reported at his separation examination that he did not know whether he has a hearing loss. Thus, an addendum to the April 2015 VA examination is necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the appellant to identify all treatment for the Veteran’s low back disorder, hepatitis C, and hearing loss, and obtain all identified records. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records from the Fayetteville (NC) VA Medical Center and Jacksonville (NC) VA community-based outpatient clinic for the period from January 2017 to April 2018. Ask the appellant to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for Cape Fear Center for Digestive Disorders and UNC Health Care. Make two requests for the authorized records from Cape Fear Center for Digestive Disorders and UNC Health Care, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 2. After the development in 1 is completed, obtain a medical opinion by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of hepatitis C. The clinician must opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including air-gun injections to administer vaccinations, sexual contact, and exposure to blood when working as an aviation structural mechanic due to sailors regularly cutting their hands while doing delicate mechanical work. 3. After the development in 1 is completed, the AOJ should arrange for the Veteran’s claims file to be reviewed by the April 2015 VA examiner who conducted the hearing loss examination for preparation of an addendum opinion regarding whether the Veteran’s hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to service, to include in-service noise exposure, with consideration of the Veteran’s reporting at his separation examination that he did not know whether he had a hearing loss. If the examiner is unavailable, arrange for the claims file to be reviewed by an appropriate clinician. 4. After the development in 1 is completed, the RO should undertake any necessary development on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder based on the additional evidence obtained. 5. Thereafter, the AOJ should readjudicate the issues on appeal with consideration of all evidence of record. If any benefit is not granted, the appellant should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case, with a copy to her representative, and afforded an opportunity to respond before the file is returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Cherry, Counsel