Citation Nr: 18146789 Decision Date: 11/01/18 Archive Date: 11/01/18 DOCKET NO. 09-45 658 DATE: November 1, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a disorder of the left leg, to include degenerative joint disease of the left hip is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for epididymitis (claimed as an enlarged testicle) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from January 1971 to May 1972, including in Thailand. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2008 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas, in which the RO determined that new and material evidence had not been received sufficient to reopen the Veteran’s previously denied claims of service connection for hallux valgus with bilateral bunions and pes planus, hepatitis C, and for a left leg disorder. The RO also denied the Veteran’s claims of service connection for a low back disorder (which was characterized as a chronic back condition claimed as back pain) and for epididymitis (claimed as an enlarged testicle). The Veteran disagreed with the decision in July 2008. He perfected a timely appeal in November 2009 and requested a Travel Board hearing, which was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at the RO in February 2013. A copy of the hearing transcript has been added to the claims file. In an August 2014 decision, the Board determined that new and material evidence had been received to reopen the claims of service connection for hepatitis C and for a left leg disorder. Further, the Board remanded the issues of whether an August 16, 1972, rating decision, which denied a claim of service connection for hallux valgus with bilateral bunions, was the product of CUE; whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a previously denied claim of service connection for hallux valgus with bilateral bunions and pes planus; and entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C, a left leg disorder, a low back disorder, and for epididymitis for further development. Specifically, as to the claims of whether service connection for hallux valgus with bilateral bunions was the product of CUE, the Board directed that the RO issue a formal rating decision. The Board also noted that the new and material evidence claim for hallux valgus with bilateral bunions and pes planus was inextricably intertwined with the CUE claim. In accordance with the Board remand, the RO issued a rating decision in August 2018. The August 2018 rating decision determined that no revision was warranted in the earlier 1972 decision to deny compensation for hallux valgus with bunions and bilateral pes planus. As the rating decision has been issued in August, just two months ago, the Board will defer consideration of the claim in this case to ensure that the Veteran has the opportunity to file a notice of disagreement (NOD) with the RO’s determination within the requisite one-year statutory time period, if he desires. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (a) (2017). As such, the Board will focus its consideration to the issues as set forth on the title page. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder; a disorder of the left leg; hepatitis C; and epididymitis are remanded. In August 2014, the Board, in part, remanded the issues of service connection for a low back disorder; a disorder of the left leg; hepatitis C; and epididymitis to obtain a VA examination. A notification letter, dated in June 2018, regarding the scheduling of a VA examination is a part of the claims file. Upon receipt of the notification letter, the Veteran specifically notified VA that he was free to attend a VA examination after June 24, 2018. Yet, a June 2018 clarification request letter reveals that the examinations were cancelled because the Veteran was unable to complete an evaluation within the contractual timeframe. It is not entirely clear to the Board whether a VA examination was ever scheduled. Yet, because the Veteran timely notified VA regarding his availability for a VA examination, and his willingness to attend such an examination, approximate in time to the notification letter advising him of same, the Board finds that good cause has been shown and the AOJ should reschedule the VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his disorders. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (2017). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and/or his attorney and ask him to identify all VA and non-VA clinicians who have treated him for hepatitis C; a left hip disorder, to include degenerative joint disease of the left hip; a low back disorder; and for epididymitis since his service separation. Obtain all VA treatment records which have not been obtained already. Once signed releases are received from the Veteran, obtain all private treatment records which have not been obtained already. A copy of any records obtained, to include a negative reply, should be included in the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for appropriate VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his hepatitis C. The claims file and a copy of this remand must be provided to the examiner for review. All appropriate testing should be conducted. The Veteran should be asked to provide a complete medical history, if possible, to include all of his risk factors for hepatitis C. Based on a review of the claims file and the results of the Veteran’s physical examination, and the Veteran’s statements regarding the development and treatment of his claimed disorder, the examiner is asked to address the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s air gun inoculations in service contributed in any way to his contracting hepatitis C? A complete rationale must be provided for any opinions expressed. 3. Schedule the Veteran for appropriate VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his left leg, to include degenerative joint disease of the left hip, as well as his low back condition. The claims file and a copy of this remand must be provided to the examiner for review. All appropriate testing should be conducted. The Veteran should be asked to provide a complete medical history, if possible. 4. Based on a review of the claims file and the results of the Veteran’s physical examination, and the Veteran’s statements regarding the development and treatment of his claimed disorders, the examiner is asked to address the following questions: (1) Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that any a low back condition, including degenerative joint disease, that the Veteran now has, originated during or is otherwise related to any injury or incident of service? (2) Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that any a left leg, to include degenerative joint disease of the left hip that the Veteran now has, originated during or is otherwise related to any injury or incident of service. A complete rationale must be provided for any opinions expressed. 5. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his epididymitis. The claims file and a copy of this remand must be provided to the examiner for review. All appropriate testing should be conducted. The Veteran should be asked to provide a complete medical history, if possible. Based on a review of the claims file and the results of the Veteran’s physical examination, and the Veteran’s statements regarding the development and treatment of his claimed disorder, the examiner is asked to address the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that epididymitis, if diagnosed, is related to active service or any incident of service? A complete rationale must be provided for any opinions expressed. 6. The Veteran should be given adequate notice of the requested examinations which includes advising him of the consequences of his failure to report to the examinations. If he fails to report to the examinations, then this fact should be noted in the claims file and a copy of the scheduling of examination notification or refusal to report notice, whichever is applicable, should be obtained by the RO and associated with the claims file. DEBORAH W. SINGLETON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Tiffany N. Hanson, Associate Counsel