Citation Nr: 18152172
Decision Date: 11/21/18	Archive Date: 11/21/18

DOCKET NO. 12-23 136
DATE:	November 21, 2018
REMANDED
Service connection for a heart disability is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
In a September 2016 decision, the Board denied service connection for a heart disability.  The Veteran appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans’ Claims (Court).  The Court issued a March 2018 Memorandum Decision that vacated the Board decision and remanded the case back to the Board.
Pursuant to the March 2018 Court decision, the Board will remand the claim for further development.  In the March 2018 decision, the Court indicated the Board did not adequately consider the Veteran’s assertion that he was directly exposed to Agent Orange while serving in Korea near the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) and specifically failed to consider his contention that herbicides were sprayed near, and may have drifted into, his camp.  The Court also noted that the 2015 VA examiner did not address the Veteran’s allegation of herbicide exposure and that the examiner indicated that the Veteran’s claims file was not available for review.  As the Veteran also continues to receive VA treatment, the Board will remand the appeal for an additional VA examination and for the collection of any additional pertinent treatment records.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records dated to the present.
2.  Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for any outstanding private treatment record.  Make two requests for the authorized records unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile.
3.  Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for a VA heart examination by an appropriate medical professional.  The entire claims file should be reviewed and all necessary tests should be conducted.  The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran has any heart disorder that had its onset during, or is otherwise causally related to, the Veteran’s service.  In so doing, the examiner is asked to specifically discuss the in-service December 1968 finding of “calcification [left] apex” and explain whether that refers to, or is otherwise related to, the Veteran’s heart and/or any current heart disability.  The examiner is also asked to address the Veteran’s allegation of in-service exposure to herbicides by explaining if, and how, any such exposure, if conceded, would change the examiner’s opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran has any heart disorder that had its onset during, or is otherwise causally related to, his service.  A complete rationale for all opinions should be provided.
4.  Subsequently readjudicate the appeal. If the benefit sought remains denied, then provide the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case; afford an appropriate period for response prior to returning the matter to the Board.
 
JEBBY RASPUTNIS
Acting Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	B. Isaacs, Associate Counsel