Citation Nr: 20009938 Decision Date: 02/07/20 Archive Date: 02/05/20 DOCKET NO. 09-01 602 DATE: February 7, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents or as secondary to service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1969 to May 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2007 rating decision by the Albuquerque, New Mexico, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In March 2013, the Veteran testified at a personal hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the transcript of that hearing is of record. The Veteran’s claim was previously remanded in July 2012, July 2013, October 2013, April 2014, April 2015, and November 2016 for further development. In January 2018, the Board denied the claim. The Veteran appealed the January 2018 Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In November 2018, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion for Remand filed by the parties, vacating the Board’s decision on the claim, and remanding the claim to the Board for action consistent with the terms of the Joint Motion. 1. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. In the November 2018 Joint Motion for Remand, the Board parties agreed that the Board erred in relying on a January 2017 VA examination. The parties agreed examiner did not apply the proper legal standards for a direct or secondary service connection. The examiner applied a higher legal standard for direct service connection when finding that no formal causation had been established in the medical community. For secondary service connection, the parties agreed that the examiner incorrectly concluded that service-connected PTSD was diagnosed after hypertension, and thus, secondary service connection was precluded. The Board finds that the January 2017 examination has been agreed by the parties to be inadequate on those bases. When VA provides an examination or obtains an opinion, the examination or opinion must be adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). On remand, a new medical opinion is required to adjudicate the Veteran’s claim. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all VA treatment records that are not already of record. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with a VA examiner who has not provided an opinion in this appeal, to address the nature and likely etiology of hypertension. The examiner must review the claims file, and should note that review in the report. Any studies deemed necessary by the examiner should be accomplished. The examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that hypertension had its onset in service, was aggravated by service, or is otherwise related to any incident of service, to specifically to include in-service herbicide agent exposure. The examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that hypertension was caused by PTSD. The examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that hypertension, has been aggravated (increased in severity beyond the natural progress of the disorder) by service-connected PTSD. The examiner should provide a full rationale for the opinions provided. Harvey P. Roberts Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Kass 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.