Citation Nr: 20006033 Decision Date: 01/28/20 Archive Date: 01/24/20 DOCKET NO. 13-18 728A DATE: January 28, 2020 REMANDED Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of service connection for a skin disorder, to include as secondary to exposure to herbicide agents is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a cardiovascular disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected disability and/or exposure to herbicide agents is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1957 to May 1977. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). These matters were previously before the Board in June 2017, at which time they were remanded for additional development. They have been returned to the Board for appellate review. 1. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of service connection for a skin disorder, to include as secondary to exposure to herbicide agents is remanded. In its June 2017 remand, the Board explicitly directed the RO to issue a statement of the case on the issue of whether new and material evidence had been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder. This development has not been accomplished. As such, the matter must be returned once more to the RO for issuance of a statement of the case. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 2. Entitlement to service connection for a cardiovascular disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected disability and/or exposure to herbicide agents is remanded. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in October 2017 to explore the etiology of his cardiovascular disorder. That examiner opined that, based on his examination of the Veteran and review of the record, it was less likely than not that any cardiovascular condition was directly related to service, or caused or aggravated by any service-connected disability. However, that examiner did not address the question of whether any diagnosed cardiovascular condition was caused or aggravated beyond its normal course of progression by exposure to herbicide agents, even though the question was specifically directed to the examiner. On remand, a new VA examination must be conducted that addressed all theories of entitlement to service connection. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. After obtaining the necessary authorization, update the file with any VA or private treatment records relevant to the Veteran’s claims. If any requested records are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified to that effect. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to explore the etiology of his cardiovascular disorders. All indicated tests and studies should be conducted and all clinical findings reported in detail. The entire claims file should be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with this request. Please identify by medical diagnosis the Veteran’s cardiovascular disorder or disorders. For each diagnosis, the examiner should state whether it is at least as likely as not (e.g. at least a 50 percent probability or greater) that the condition began in service or is otherwise related to service. If it is determined that the diagnosed disorder or disorders are not etiologically related to service, the examiner should comment on whether, on an at least as likely as not basis, the condition or conditions have been caused or aggravated beyond its normal course of progression by diabetes mellitus, or any other service-connected disability. If it is determined that the no condition is etiologically related to service, nor to any service-connected disability, the examiner should comment on whether, on an at least as likely as not basis, a cardiovascular condition has been caused or aggravated beyond its normal course of progression by exposure to herbicide agents. The examiner is advised that such exposure is conceded in the Veteran’s case. 3. Review the opinion and any examination reports to ensure that it is in complete compliance with the directives of this remand. If the opinion or report is deficient in any manner, the AOJ must implement corrective procedures. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 4. The RO should issue a statement of the case regarding the issue of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of service connection for a skin disorder, including as secondary to herbicide agent exposure. The Veteran and his representative should be advised that, for the Board to have jurisdiction of this matter, a timely substantive appeal must be filed. Thereafter, if indicated, the case should be returned to the Board for appellate review. 5. After completing the requested actions and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted, readjudicate the issues remaining on appeal. If any benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the Veteran and his representative must be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and afforded the appropriate time period for response. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Z. Sahraie, Associate Counsel 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.