Citation Nr: 20021042 Decision Date: 03/24/20 Archive Date: 03/24/20 DOCKET NO. 15-17 213 DATE: March 24, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for service-connected hypothyroidism is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from September 2001 to March 2008. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In March 2018, the Veteran testified before a Board hearing. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. However, the Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) who conducted the hearing and signed the previous Board remand is no longer available to participate in the Veteran’s appeal. The Veteran was given another opportunity to appear at a hearing before a VLJ who would decide the claim. See January 2020 BVA Letter. However, the Veteran did not invoke his right to appear at an additional hearing, and as such, the Board will proceed with adjudication. See March 2020 Third Party Correspondence. By way of background, in September 2018, the Board granted the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for obstructive sleep apnea and as such this claim is no longer before the Board. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for service-connected hypothyroidism is remanded. In a March 2019 and December 2019 correspondence, the Veteran alleged worsening of his hypothyroidism since the March 2019 VA examination. The Veteran also argued that the March 2019 VA examination is inadequate as the examiner did not note all of his complaints. Specifically, the Veteran stated that he gained approximately 40 pounds since his last VA examination. The Veteran also reported of having anxiety, depression, muscular weakness, memory fog, and infertility due to his hypothyroidism. See March 2019 Third Party Correspondence and December 2019 Appellate Brief. A review of the records shows that the Veteran exhibited fatigue, constipation, mental sluggishness, and a modest weight gain of 18 pounds in a four-year period. Specifically, the Veteran weighed 240 pounds in October 2015, 247 pounds in July 2016, 253 pounds in January 2017, and 258 pounds in May 2019. See March 2018 CAPRI. The Board notes that the Veteran complained of cold intolerance in 2013 but that the Veteran’s symptoms improved so much so that by August 2017 the Veteran denied having any chills. Further, despite the Veteran’s contentions, the records do not indicate any muscular weakness, mental disturbance, cardiovascular involvement, bradycardia, depression, and sleepiness. However, the records also show that in June 2018 a physician opined that the Veteran’s hypothyroidism played an important role in the Veteran’s infertility. See March 2019 Medical Treatment Record – Non-Government Facility. As the Veteran alleged worsening and the treatment records show further residuals from his hypothyroidism, the Board finds that a remand is warranted. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to evaluate the current severity of his hypothyroidism. The examiner is to perform any necessary tests, and discuss the current symptoms of the Veteran’s hypothyroidism, including whether the hypothyroidism manifests as myxedema ((cold intolerance, muscular weakness, cardiovascular involvement (including, but not limited to hypotension, bradycardia, and pericardial effusion)) and mental disturbance (including, but not limited to dementia, slowing of thought and depression). The examiner is also asked to look at the record and provide an opinion on whether, at any point during the claim period from July 2013, the Veteran’s hypothyroidism manifested symptoms such as anxiety, depression, muscular weakness, memory fog, and infertility (to include cardiovascular involvement), separate and distinct from other disabilities. Each opinion offered must be supported by a complete rationale. S. HENEKS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board P. Noh, 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.