Citation Nr: 20037726 Decision Date: 06/02/20 Archive Date: 06/02/20 DOCKET NO. 17-14 163 DATE: June 2, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a thyroid condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from January 1961 to May 1964. The Board remanded this issue in February 2019. In that decision, the Board also remanded the issues of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss and entitlement to service connection for a heart condition. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction granted entitlement to service connection for hearing loss and entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease in an April 2020 rating decision. As this represents a total grant of the benefits sought on appeal with respect to those issues, they are not before the Board at this time. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the February 2019 decision, the Board noted that the Veteran has submitted evidence indicating that Fort Ord has been designated a Superfund site due to chemical contamination; listing the chemical contaminants known to be present at Fort Ord; and describing the medical conditions associated with those contaminants. Among the evidence submitted by the Veteran is the abstract for a scholarly article that states thyroid dysfunction was observed in a study where rats were exposed to benzene-related compounds. The list of chemical contaminants at Fort Ord includes benzene-related compounds. The Board further noted in the February 2019 decision that the Veteran submitted a private nexus opinion etiologically relating his current hypothyroidism to exposure to chemicals at Fort Ord. However, the Board found the opinion not to be probative because it was not supported by adequate rationale. The Board therefore remanded the issue so that the Veteran could be provided an examination as to his claimed thyroid condition. The Board asked that the examiner on remand provide a nexus opinion that references the materials submitted by the Veteran as to the substances known to have been present at Fort Ord. On remand, a VA examiner opined in February 2020 that the Veteran’s diagnosed thyroid condition is less likely than not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including exposure to substances while serving at Fort Ord. As a rationale for that opinion, the examiner explained, “The rationale for this opinion is that Hypothyroidism is not a presumed condition of exposure to substances while serving at Fort Ord as per review of the medical literature.” The Board finds the February 2020 VA examiner’s opinion to be inadequate for decision-making purposes because it does not address the materials submitted by the Veteran and is inconsistent with those materials, as the materials suggest that thyroid conditions may be caused by some of the chemicals known to have been present at Fort Ord. Accordingly, the issue must be remanded so that an addendum opinion must be obtained. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s diagnosed thyroid condition is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) etiologically to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including exposure to substances while serving at Fort Ord. The opinion must discuss the materials submitted by the Veteran, which indicate that Fort Ord has been designated a Superfund site due to chemical contamination; list the chemical contaminants known to be present at Fort Ord; and describe the medical conditions associated with those contaminants. In particular, the clinician’s attention is directed to the abstract for a scholarly article that states that thyroid dysfunction was observed in a study where rats were exposed to benzene-related compounds. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. J. Anthony, 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.