Citation Nr: 18157748
Decision Date: 12/13/18	Archive Date: 12/13/18

DOCKET NO. 09-41 061
DATE:	December 13, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as due to herbicide exposure or as secondary to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and diabetes mellitus, type II is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from November 1964 to January 1969. 
In a May 2018 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated and remanded the Board’s denial of service connection for hypertension based on the determination that a May and July 2016 VA examinations were inadequate. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Based on the findings of the JMR, a remand is necessary to obtain an adequate medical opinion.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1. Update VA treatment records. 
2. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the etiology of his hypertension. The examiner should review the claims file in its entirety and provide an opinion answering the following questions:
Is the Veteran’s hypertension at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) etiologically related to his military service, to include exposure to herbicide agents?
The examiner should note that the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents and comment on whether such exposure caused his hypertension. 
In the alternative, is the Veteran’s hypertension at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) caused by his service-connected PTSD; and
Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s hypertension has been aggravated by his service-connected PTSD. 
In the alternative, is the Veteran’s hypertension at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) caused by his service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II; and
Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s hypertension has been aggravated by his service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II. 
 
A complete rationale should be provided for all opinions and should fully consider the Veteran’s lay testimony. If the examiner finds that the disability is due to another disability, complete rationale for the attribution to this separate disability must be provided. If an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to speculation, the examiners must explain why this is the case.

 
Nathaniel J. Doan
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	S.SOLOMON