Citation Nr: 18150652 Decision Date: 11/15/18 Archive Date: 11/15/18 DOCKET NO. 16-40 849 DATE: November 15, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for left testicular atrophy is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of ischemic heart disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the United States Army from September 1966 to September 1968. 1. Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease There is no competent evidence of record, VA or private, showing that the Veteran had been treated for or diagnosed with ischemic heart disease. As noted above, service connection requires a showing of a current disability. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). A current disability is shown if the claimed condition is demonstrated at the time of the claim or while the claim is pending. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007). In March 2012, the Veteran provided a provisional diagnosis of ischemic heart disease from his chiropractor. The chiropractor noted in his correspondence that he did not have the requisite equipment to diagnose ischemic heart disease. On this basis, the Veteran was provided with a February 2013 VA examination. The VA examiner found that the Veteran did not have ischemic heart disease. Importantly, the Veteran while disagreeing with the April 2013 has not provided any argument or evidence outside of the provisional diagnosis by his chiropractor in March 2012. Without a diagnosed or identifiable underlying malady or condition, the chiropractor’s observations do not constitute a “disability” for which service connection may be granted. In light of the absence of any competent evidence of a disability, this claim must be denied. In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, that doctrine is not applicable. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for left testicular atrophy is remanded. Unfortunately, the Board has determined that further evidentiary development is required before adjudication can proceed for this claim. The Veteran’s chiropractor’s March 2012 correspondence notes that within one year of separation the Veteran was treated for a left testicle disability at “Suburban General Hospital in Bellevue, Pennsylvania which is now part of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center”; however, these records are not contained in the claims folder. The Veteran subsequently submitted an April 2012 Psychological Evaluation wherein a private psychologist noted that the Veteran reported that “secondary to his discharge, he experienced substantial swelling his left testicle, which resulted in his being hospitalized at Suburban General Hospital in Bellevue, Pennsylvania. The Board notes that the evidence in the claims file suggests that these records exist. Before adjudication can proceed these records should be obtained and associated with the claims file. Additionally, the Board lacks the competent expertise to infer, absent the medical evidence noted above, from the medical evidence provided by his March 2012 chiropractor and April 2012 psychologist that the Veteran’s testicular disability is related to his active duty service. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Considering the foregoing, the Board finds that a VA examination is warranted. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and request that he identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all VA and non-VA health care providers who have treated him for his disabilities. The Veteran should be requested to sign any necessary authorization for release of medical records to VA, and appropriate steps should be made to obtain any identified records. In particular, the Board is interested in the 1969 medical evidence from Suburban General Hospital in Bellevue, Pennsylvania cited in the Veteran’s March 2012 Chiropractor’s correspondence. If any requested records are not available, or the search for any such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact must clearly be documented in the claims file. If the records are unavailable, notify the Veteran in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. 2. After the above development is accomplished, schedule the Veteran for appropriate VA examination(s). The claims folder (including a copy of this remand) must be provided to and reviewed by the examiner(s) as part of the examination. A notation to the effect that this review has taken place should be made in the evaluation report. All tests, studies, and evaluations should be performed as deemed necessary by the examiner(s), and the results of any testing must be included in the examination report. The examiner(s) should review the service treatment records (STRs), any post-service records contained in the claims file, and take a detailed history from the Veteran regarding the onset of his left testicle disability and any continuity of symptoms since that time. After considering the pertinent information in the record in its entirety and identifying any left testicle disability, the examiner is asked to opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not i.e. 50 percent probability or greater, that any identified left testicle disability was incurred or aggravated by his active duty or otherwise etiologically related to his active service. In providing an opinion, the examiner should comment on the March 2012 correspondence from the Veteran’s chiropractor and April 2012 Psychological Evaluation. 3. Ensure that the examination report complies with this remand and the questions presented in this request. If the report is insufficient, it must be returned to the examiner for necessary corrective action, as appropriate. 2. After completing the requested actions and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the Veteran and his representative must be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and afforded the appropriate time period for response. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Acosta