Citation Nr: 18151561 Decision Date: 11/19/18 Archive Date: 11/19/18 DOCKET NO. 14-11 689 DATE: November 19, 2018 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent prior to June 14, 2016, and in excess of 60 percent thereafter, for coronary artery disease, status post coronary artery bypass grafting, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1978 to July 1982 and from February to July 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2010 decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Appeals Management Center (AMC) in Washington, District of Columbia. Jurisdiction is currently in the Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. In January 2015, the Veteran testified during a Board hearing before the undersigned. A transcript of that hearing is of record. In a March 2017 decision, the Board, in pertinent part, denied a rating in excess of 30 percent prior to June 14, 2016, and in excess of 60 percent thereafter, for the Veteran’s coronary artery disease. The Veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an April 2018 Order, the Court granted the parties’ March 2018 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), vacating that portion of the March 2017 Board decision that denied entitlement to an increased rating for the Veteran’s coronary artery disease and remanded the appeal to the Board for re-adjudication consistent with the JMR. The increased rating claim for coronary artery disease, status post coronary artery bypass grafting remanded. In the March 2018 JMR, the parties agreed that the March 2017 Board decision did not address a November 2013 VA cardiology consult note, in which Dr. A.O.S. diagnosed congestive heart failure, which potentially warrants a 100 percent rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7017 (2017). Specifically, the March 2018 JMR points out that, while the March 2017 Board decision cites November 2013 and June 2016 VA cardiology examiners’ negative findings for congestive heart failure, that decision does not address Dr. A.O.S.’s finding in the November 2013 VA cardiology consult note that the Veteran had a past medical history of and current diagnosis for congestive heart failure. Further, of record is a March 2016 VA treatment note indicating that the Veteran has had “continuing issues related to congestive heart failure.” A remand is necessary for a VA examination addressing whether the Veteran had congestive heart failure at any time during the appeal period, to specifically include consideration the November 2013 VA cardiology consult note indicating that the Veteran had a past medical history of and current diagnosis for congestive heart failure. Consistent with the March 2018 JMR, the VA examination should also address whether the Veteran has separate and distinct cardiac disabilities related to his service-connected coronary artery disease during the appeal period. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Update private and VA clinical records of the Veteran. 2. Schedule the Veteran for appropriate a VA examination to address his increased rating claim for coronary artery disease. All indicated tests and studies should be undertaken. The examiner is asked to furnish an opinion with respect to the following questions: (A) The examiner should opine whether the Veteran had congestive heart failure at any time during the appeal period (i.e. since August 2002). In answering this question, the examiner should consider all pertinent clinical evidence, to specifically include the November 2013 VA cardiology note from Dr. A.O.S., who found that the Veteran had a past medical history of and current diagnosis for congestive heart failure; and the March 2016 VA treatment note indicating that the Veteran has had “continuing issues related to congestive heart failure.” (B) The examiner should also opine whether the Veteran has separate and distinct cardiac disabilities related to his service-connected coronary artery disease during the appeal period. The rationale for all opinions offered should be provided. (Continued on the next page) 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated, the AOJ is to readjudicate the claim based on the entirety of the evidence of record. If the claim remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period should be allowed for response. MARJORIE A. AUER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Kim, Associate Counsel