Citation Nr: 20008251 Decision Date: 01/30/20 Archive Date: 01/30/20 DOCKET NO. 14-18 037 DATE: January 30, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased initial rating in excess of 10 percent for hypertension is remanded for additional development. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active military service with the U.S. Navy from September 1969 to June 1984. During this time, he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, among other awards. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2013 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Roanoke, Virginia. Procedurally, the Board notes that it most recently remanded this case in April 2018 for the Veteran to undergo a new VA hypertension examination; the Veteran underwent that examination in June 2019. Entitlement to an increased initial rating in excess of 10 percent for hypertension is remanded. While the Board sincerely regrets the delay, a remand is required before the Board may make a determination on the merits of the instant appeal. The Veteran has asserted that his service-connected hypertension warrants a higher initial rating than the 10 percent currently assigned. In conjunction with his claim for an increased rating, the Veteran underwent a VA hypertension examination in June 2019. However, a review of this examination reflects that the Veteran was not interviewed in person; rather, the examiner conducted the interview via telephone, and thus, current blood pressure readings were not taken in person. Further, the blood pressure readings listed in the examination were taken from 2009 and 2011. The Board finds that the information elicited during the October 2018 examination is inadequate for making a determination on the hypertension increased rating claim, as it contains dated information that does not properly reflect the current severity of the Veteran’s condition. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311-12 (2007) (once VA undertakes the effort to provide a medical examination or opinion, it must provide an adequate one). Accordingly, the Board finds that another remand is required in other to provide the Veteran with a new VA examination in order to properly determine the current severity of the Veteran’s service-connected hypertension, as the file does not reflect substantial compliance with the prior remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any additional outstanding VA treatment records for the Veteran and associate them with the claims file. All attempts to secure any identified records and any response received must be documented in the case file. 2. After any available records are associated with the claims file, schedule the Veteran for an additional VA examination with an examiner other than the June 2019 examiner to address the current severity of the Veteran’s service-connected hypertension. The examination should include any diagnostic testing or evaluation deemed necessary. Access to the electronic claims file, including a copy of this remand, must be made available for the examiner to review. The examination report must include a notation that this record review took place. The Veteran must be interviewed in person. It should be noted that the Veteran is competent to attest to matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, including observable symptomatology. The examination should include any diagnostic testing or evaluation deemed necessary for the specific claimed disability. 3. Then, adjudicate the claim for an increased rating for the Veteran’s service-connected hypertension disability. If the benefit sought is not granted, issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and allow the Veteran and his representative an appropriate amount of time to respond. DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Raj, 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.