Citation Nr: 18154651 Decision Date: 11/30/18 Archive Date: 11/30/18 DOCKET NO. 16-60 988 DATE: November 30, 2018 ORDER New and material evidence having been received, the claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension is reopened. REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s claim to service connect hypertension was last denied in a February 1997 Board decision because the evidence did not show a then-current diagnosis, nor a relationship to service. Since then, he has provided new and material evidence that raises the possibility of substantiating the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria are met to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for hypertension. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1978 to February 1986. The claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension is reopened. In general, VA rating decisions or Board decisions that are not timely appealed are final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.1100, 20.1103. A finally disallowed claim may be reopened only when new and material evidence is secured with respect to that claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. “New” evidence is evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers. Evidence is “material” if it relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). The regulation does not require new and material evidence as to each previously unproven element of the claim. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). The Veteran’s claim to service connect his back disability was last denied in a March 1988 Board decision, which found the Veteran had not developed chronic hypertension while in service, and had not had high blood pressure readings since his separation from service. He did not appeal that decision, and it is now final. Since then, he has been diagnosed with chronic hypertension. See VA examination dated received in January 2015. The Board finds this is new and material evidence, and raises the possibility of substantiating the claim. The claim is therefore reopened. REASONS FOR REMAND The claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. The record shows the Veteran has been diagnosed with hypertension since October 1999. He asserts that it is related to high blood pressure readings while in service. He also asserts that it is caused or aggravated by his service-connected lumbar spine disability. The current VA examination does not adequately address these theories of entitlement. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain update VA treatment records. 2. Thereafter, obtain a VA medical opinion as to whether it is as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s hypertension is related to his service. The examiner is asked to review the record and conduct a search of the relevant literature prior to opining. The Veteran’s STRs show many blood pressure readings, the highest in September 1983 (142/100). His systolic readings ranged from 100 to 152, and his diastolic ranged from 50 to 100. The examiner is asked to provide an opinion on whether he had elevated blood pressure readings in service and whether his readings in service as likely as not are related to his current hypertension. The Veteran asserts that his back disability causes or aggravates his hypertension. “Aggravate” means to cause any increase in severity that is beyond the normal progression. The examiner is asked to provide an opinion on whether it is as likely as not that the Veteran’s low back diagnosis or symptoms thereof, especially pain, cause or aggravate the Veteran’s hypertension. All opinions must be supported with explanation. It is up to the discretion of the examiner as to whether a physical examination is required to render an opinion. If so, the examiner is asked to notify the scheduling authority. Nathaniel J. Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Gibson