Citation Nr: 19187188 Decision Date: 11/19/19 Archive Date: 11/19/19 DOCKET NO. 15-10 691 DATE: November 19, 2019 ORDER The issue of service connection for dyslipidemia is denied. REMANDED The issue of an initial rating higher than 10 percent for coronary artery disease (CAD) is remanded. The issue of service connection for hypertension, to include as due to an herbicide agent, is remanded. FINDING OF FACT Dyslipidemia is a laboratory finding and it does not qualify as a disability for VA purposes. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for dyslipidemia are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from December 1965 to December 1967, including service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In that decision, the RO granted service connection for CAD and assigned a 10 percent rating, effective April 16, 2011, and denied service for dyslipidemia and hypertension. In the Veteran’s March 2015 substantive appeal, he requested a Board hearing. In July 2018, the Veteran withdrew his hearing request. Accordingly, the hearing request is deemed withdrawn. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that current disability resulted from an injury suffered or disease contracted in active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of: (1) current disability; (2) in-service injury or disease; and (3) a relationship between the two. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Consistent with this framework, service connection is warranted for a disease first diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Service connection for dyslipidemia is denied. The Veteran seeks service connection for dyslipidemia. See, e.g., Veteran’s claim dated April 2012. Private cardiology treatment records show that the Veteran’s dyslipidemia was controlled on medical therapy. See, e.g., private treatment record dated April 2010. For the following reasons, service connection for dyslipidemia is not warranted. Dyslipidemia is defined as an “abnormality in, or abnormal amounts of, lipids and lipoproteins in the blood.” See Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 586 (31st ed. 2007). Dyslipidemia is a laboratory finding and is not a disability in and of itself for which VA compensation benefits is payable. See 61 Fed. Reg. 20,440, 20,445 (May 7, 1996) (“Diagnoses of hyperlipidemia, elevated triglycerides, and elevated cholesterol are actually laboratory results and are not, in and of themselves, disabilities. They are, therefore, not appropriate entities for the rating schedule.”). A symptom (to include abnormal laboratory study), without a diagnosed or identifiable underlying malady or condition, does not, in and of itself, constitute a “disability” for which service connection may be granted. See Sanchez-Benitez v. West, 13 Vet. App. 282 (1999). Therefore, dyslipidemia only represents a laboratory finding and is not an actual disability for which VA compensation benefits is payable. As dyslipidemia is not a disability for VA compensation benefits purposes, i.e., not a “service-connectable” disability entity, the Veteran has not presented a valid claim and service connection must be denied. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). REASONS FOR REMAND The issues of an initial rating higher than 10 percent for CAD and service connection for hypertension are remanded. In July 2013, the Veteran was afforded a VA hypertension examination and a VA ischemic heart disease (IHD) examination. Following the July 2013 VA examinations, the Veteran submitted statements indicating that the July 2013 VA examinations were flawed because the examiner’s findings were inaccurate, as he did not consider the Veteran’s private cardiology treatment records. See Veteran’s notice of disagreement (NOD) dated September 2013 and VA Form 9 dated March 2015. The July 2013 VA hypertension and IHD examination reports reflect that the VA examiner checked the box indicating that he did not review the Veteran’s claims file; however, the examiner also checked the boxes indicating that he reviewed the Veteran’s VA and civilian medical records. In sum, the Veteran contends that the July 2013 VA examinations are flawed because his private cardiology treatment records were not considered. As shown above, the July 2013 VA examination reports are unclear as to whether the VA examiner did in fact consider the private cardiology treatment records. Furthermore, based on the Veteran’s statements, it is unclear whether all the Veteran’s private cardiology treatment records have been associated with the claims file. For these reasons, a remand is necessary to attempt to obtain the Veteran’s private cardiology treatment records and then to schedule him for new VA examinations. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for private cardiology treatment records regarding his CAD and hypertension. Request the records. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine to the current severity of his service-connected CAD. All necessary tests should be conducted. The claims file must be sent to the examiner for review. The examiner should examine the Veteran and provide findings in accordance with the currently applicable disability benefits questionnaire. All opinions must be supported by a detailed rationale. 3. Request an opinion from a VA physician as to the etiology of the Veteran’s hypertension. The claims file must be made available to the physician for review. The VA physician should opine whether the Veteran’s hypertension is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that it had its onset in service, manifested within one year following his separation from service, or is otherwise related to his military service, to include as due to his presumed exposure to an herbicide agent (Agent Orange) in the Republic of Vietnam. The physician should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the service-connected PTSD and CAD caused or aggravated his hypertension. The physician should provide a complete rationale for any opinion given. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Ashley Castillo The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.