Citation Nr: 20021318 Decision Date: 03/25/20 Archive Date: 03/25/20 DOCKET NO. 17-60 626 DATE: March 25, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a hernia condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had qualifying service from November 1965 to October 1967. In February 2020, the Veteran testified at a Board videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. 1. Service Connection for a Hernia Condition The Veteran generally contends that, during service, he suffered a hernia injury that led to a subsequent hernia repair surgery and resulting scar. See June 1999 Rochester General Hospital record (the Veteran underwent right inguinal hernia repair surgery in June 1999); February 2020 Board hearing transcript (the Veteran reported no hernia problems since his surgery except having a residual scar; the Veteran also contended that he experienced continuous pain on his right side from the time of his service until the time of his surgery). The August 1965 entrance examination did not note any pertinent abnormalities. A service treatment record (STR) dated September 6, 1967, documented the Veteran’s report of sharp pain in the right side while lifting; this STR also noted “previous record of hernia,” but did not further specify. Subsequent STRs dated September 8, 1967, documented the Veteran’s report of pain while lifting; although the provider wrote a provisional diagnosis of rule out femoral hernia right side, the provider then noted that, after examination, there was no evidence of either a femoral or inguinal hernia. The Veteran ultimately was given a profile for no heavy lifting or bending for one week. The October 1967 separation examination did not note any pertinent abnormalities. In February 2020, the Veteran submitted an etiological opinion favorable to him, which was written by private provider Dr. TG. Dr. TG opined that the Veteran’s painful right inguinal hernia repair scar was more likely than not related to his service; the provider noted that he based his opinion on the Veteran’s reporting and on the September 6, 1967, STR (but did not specify or explain further). Notably, the Board finds this provider’s opinion to be inadequate for failure to provide adequate rationale; specifically, the provider failed to discuss the September 8, 1967, STR and the October 1967 separation examination, which seemingly indicate that an in-service hernia was never actually diagnosed. Notably, the Veteran has not presented evidence showing that he has the medical background necessary to competently self-diagnose a hernia or to competently opine regarding the etiology of this condition (as it is not lay-observable); however, he is competent to report his lay-observable symptom of right-side pain. See February 2020 Board hearing transcript; Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the February 2020 private opinion is inadequate, the Veteran is not competent to render an etiological opinion, and the Veteran has never been afforded a VA examination to assess the nature, severity, and etiology of his hernia condition; thus, the Board must remand for further etiological development. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Examine the nature, severity, and etiology of the Veteran’s hernia condition. McLendon, 20 Vet. App. 79. The opinion must address, but is not limited to, all the following: (a) pertinent STRs (see August 1965 entrance examination [did not note any pertinent abnormalities]; see also STR dated September 6, 1967 [documented the Veteran’s report of sharp pain in the right side while lifting; also noted “previous record of hernia,” but did not further specify]; see also STR dated September 8, 1967 [documented the Veteran’s report of pain while lifting; although the provider wrote a provisional diagnosis of rule out femoral hernia right side, the provider then noted that, after examination, there was no evidence of either a femoral or inguinal hernia; the Veteran ultimately was given a profile for no heavy lifting or bending for one week]; see also October 1967 separation examination [did not note any pertinent abnormalities]); (b) pertinent lay contentions (see February 2020 Board hearing transcript [the Veteran reported no hernia problems since his June 1999 surgery except having a residual scar; the Veteran also contended that he experienced continuous pain on his right side from the time of his service until the time of his surgery]); and (c) pertinent medical evidence (see June 1999 Rochester General Hospital record [the Veteran underwent right inguinal hernia repair surgery in June 1999]; see also February 2020 etiological opinion favorable to the Veteran, which was written by private provider Dr. TG [Dr. TG opined that the Veteran’s painful right inguinal hernia repair scar was more likely than not related to his service; the provider noted that he based his opinion on the Veteran’s reporting and on the September 6, 1967, STR]). 2. Readjudicate the appeal. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Daus, 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.