Citation Nr: 20021366 Decision Date: 03/25/20 Archive Date: 03/25/20 DOCKET NO. 16-38 699 DATE: March 25, 2020 REMANDED Sleep apnea secondary to a psychological condition is remanded. Service connection for acid reflux associated with a psychological condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Sleep apnea secondary to a psychological condition is remanded. 2. Service connection for acid reflux associated with a psychological condition is remanded. In a September 2018 decision the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) remanded these matters for VA examinations pursuant to McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). Documentation from VA indicates that in March 2019 these exam requests were canceled due to an inability to contact the Veteran to schedule an examination. Recently, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-22 updating his power of attorney and current mailing address. See December 2019 VA Form 21-22. Accordingly, the Board will again remand these matters for the previously mandated VA examinations. However, the Board reminds the Veteran that if it is not able to develop the claim by obtaining the medical information it needs, then it will be forced to adjudicate the claims based on the evidence of record. Moreover, the record indicates that there is an outstanding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that must be fulfilled by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) on remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Please note that, by law, ALL remanded claims MUST be processed expeditiously. 2. Obtain and associate with the claims file any outstanding VA treatment records. 3. Make reasonable efforts to satisfy the Veteran’s December 2019 FOIA request or send the Veteran and his representative a correspondence explaining why his request cannot be satisfied. 4. After completing (1), (2) above, schedule the Veteran for an appropriate examination for his acid reflux claim. The examiner should review the claims file and address the following: (a.) Does the Veteran have a current gastroesophageal disability that is at least as likely as not related to service, including complaints of stomach problems and difficulty swallowing in January and March 2003? (b.) Does the Veteran have a current gastroesophageal disability that is at least as likely as not caused by his service-connected PTSD? (c.) Does the Veteran have a current gastroesophageal disability that was at least as likely as not aggravated (worsened) by his service-connected PTSD? If aggravation is found, provide a baseline level of disability prior to aggravation. The examiner should consider all relevant evidence, including lay statements, and provide a comprehensive rationale for any opinion offered. If the opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the examiner should explain why, and state whether the inability is due to the absence of evidence or limits of scientific/medical knowledge. 4. After completing (1), (2), (3) above, schedule the Veteran for an appropriate examination for his sleep disorder claim. The examiner should review the claims file and address the following: (a.) Is the Veteran’s current sleep disorder at least as likely as not related to service, including complaints of sleep trouble in January 2003? (b.) Is the Veteran’s current sleep disorder at least as likely as not caused by his service-connected PTSD? (c.) Was the Veteran’s current sleep disorder at least as likely as not aggravated (worsened) by his service-connected PTSD? If aggravation is found, provide a baseline level of disability prior to aggravation. (Continued on the next page) The examiner should consider all relevant evidence, including lay statements, and provide a comprehensive rationale for any opinion offered. If the opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the examiner should explain why, and state whether the inability is due to the absence of evidence or limits of scientific/medical knowledge. VICTORIA MOSHIASHWILI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Kyle McKone 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.