Citation Nr: 18134792 Decision Date: 09/13/18 Archive Date: 09/13/18 DOCKET NO. 16-07 912 DATE: September 13, 2018 ORDER The claim to reopen the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for high cholesterol is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a final decision issued in July 2006, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for high cholesterol. 2. Evidence added to the record since the July 2006 prior final denial is cumulative or redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the prior decision and does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the underlying claim of entitlement to service connection for high cholesterol. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The July 2006 rating decision denying, in pertinent part, service connection for high cholesterol is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (2017). 2. New and material evidence sufficient to reopen the claim of service connection for high cholesterol has not been received. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a) (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from March 1968 to February 1970. New and Material Evidence High Cholesterol The preliminary question of whether a previously denied claim should be reopened is a jurisdictional matter that must be addressed before the Board may consider the underlying claim on its merits. Barnett v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 1, 4, (1995), aff’d, Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 130 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In order to reopen a claim which has been denied by a final decision, a claimant must present new and material evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a); see also Jackson v. Principi, 265 F.3d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001) New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers. Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, 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 sought to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. Here, in an July 2006 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim for service connection for high cholesterol for a lack of a current disability. This decision is final, as the Veteran did not appeal this decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (c) (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 20.302, 20.1103 (2017). In March 2011, the Veteran submitted a claim to reopen his claim for high cholesterol. The evidence of record at the time of the final prior denial in July 2006 included, inter alia, the Veteran’s service treatment records, military personnel records, medical records, and lay statements. Specifically, the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial failed to establish that the Veteran had a current disability in which service connection was warranted. Therefore, the issue before the Board is whether evidence obtained since the July 2006 prior final denial relates to establishing that the Veteran has a current disability. The evidence submitted and obtained since the July 2006 prior final denial includes VA and non-VA treatment records and the Veteran’s lay statements. At the onset, the Board finds that the evidence of record obtained since the July 2006 prior final denial does not support that the Veteran has a separately diagnosable condition for which his high cholesterol is the primary symptom. High cholesterol is also referred to as hypercholesterolemia or hyperlipidemia and the Veteran’s medical treatment records document diagnoses of hyperlipidemia. A “disability” for the purposes of awarding VA disability benefits is not only a disease or an injury, but also any “other physical or mental defect.” 38 U.S.C. § 1701 (1); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 444-45 (1995) (applying definition of disability in section 1701(1) to statutes describing “eligibility for disability compensation for service connected disabilities”). The Court in Allen also indicated that disability for VA compensation purposes refers to impairment of earning capacity due to a disease or injury, rather than to a disease or injury itself. Id. By definition, hyperlipidemia is a general term for elevated concentrations of any or all of the lipids in the plasma, including hypertriglycerides and hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol). Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 903 (31st ed. 2007). In this regard, the Board notes that reference to a medical dictionary to assist in understanding the nature of a disorder is not improper. See O’Bryan v. McDonald, 771 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (referencing Dorland’s for nature of and symptoms associated with a condition). VA has in its rulemaking capacity similarly indicated that high cholesterol does not fall within VA’s definition of disability for which compensation is warranted. 61 Fed. Reg. 20440, 20445 (May 7, 1996) (supplementary information preceding revisions to criteria for evaluating endocrine system indicating that hyperlipidemia, elevated triglycerides, and elevated cholesterol “are actually laboratory test results, and are not, in and of themselves, disabilities”). Moreover, in this case, the finding of hyperlipidemia is not shown to be associated with any disability-much less one that was incurred in or aggravated by active service. Nor does the evidence suggesting high cholesterol, on its own, has caused any impairment of earning capacity or other disease or injury for which service connection may be granted. Given such, the evidence does not establish a current disability. The Board has considered whether this evidence constitutes new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the claim of service connection for high cholesterol. The evidence, as explained above does not establish a current disability. Given that none of the evidence submitted raised a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim in that the evidence did not raise the possibility of establishing that the Veteran has a current disability, the evidence submitted is simply not new and material. In this regard, the Board finds the evidence submitted since the July 2006 rating decision does not rise to the level of new and material evidence as it is cumulative and redundant, stems from the same factual basis, and does not relate to an unestablished fact, by itself or when considered with other evidence, necessary to substantiate the claim. Accordingly, the petition to reopen the claim for service connection for high cholesterol must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a). YVETTE R. WHITE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Abdelbary, Associate Counsel