Citation Nr: 20042393 Decision Date: 06/23/20 Archive Date: 06/23/20 DOCKET NO. 16-18 423 DATE: June 23, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for sinonasal polypous with allergic rhinitis (include nasal polyps, hypertrophic inferior turbinates, sinus nasal and allergies) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from January 1983 to June 1989. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran contends that his condition was due to exposure to chemicals while in the military. In a May 2013 statement, the Veteran wrote that he served as an aircraft mechanic in the military and his occupation exposed him to chemicals and paints to include polyurethane, toluene, naphtha, hydraulic fluid, and PD-680. He also wrote that he began seeking treatment for his respiratory problems in 1993. He stated that his first doctor Dr. B.G. did not have his medical records because the doctor’s office only kept them for ten years. However, the Veteran provided the doctor’s telephone number. The Veteran also stated that doctor B.G. treated him for a spot on his lung, and that a chest x-ray from service could show whether the spot was there previously. In the May 2020 Appellant’s Brief, the Veteran’s stated that he attempted to locate chest x-rays that were taken during his military service to determine whether evidence of his condition was present at that time. However, he was unable to locate them. The RO made one attempt to locate these records in June 2013. However, no written response was associated with the record of the outcome of the request. Therefore, remand is required to attempt to locate these records. Furthermore, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in May 2013. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with sinonasal polyposis. No medical opinion was provided. The Veteran underwent another VA examination in August 2013. The examiner acknowledged three separate diagnoses: chronic sinusitis, allergic rhinitis, and nasal polyps. The examiner wrote that the earliest objective evidence of the conditions was in 1996. A letter was written from a private doctor in 2010 but no records were available to review. The examiner said he was unable to render an opinion without resorting to mere speculation because of the Veteran’s conflicting statements and the missing records. The examiner did not comment on the Veteran’s theory that exposure to paints and other chemicals in service contributed to the development of his symptoms. The Board finds this examination to be inadequate because the examiner did not have all the available records to review and did not fully address the Veteran’s contentions. On remand, a new examination is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding medical treatment records, if any, and associate them with the claims file. Contact Dr. B.G. using the phone number provided by the Veteran to obtain the information necessary to request a copy of the medical records associated with the Veteran’s care. Make two requests for the authorized records from Dr. B.G.’s office unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 2. Contact the National Personnel Records Center to request copies of the Veteran’s service treatment records, to include diagnostic X-ray imaging. If these records cannot be located, a formal finding of unavailability must be documented in the file. 3. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his disability. The entire claims folder, including a copy of this remand, must be provided to and reviewed by the examiner prior to the completion of the opinion, and the opinion must reflect that the claims folder was reviewed. The examiner is asked to render an opinion on: Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any current sinus or respiratory disability is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include exposure to hazardous chemicals or paints. A clear rationale must be provided for all opinions expressed. The examiner must consider the Veteran's lay statements regarding injury in service. If it is the examiner's opinion that the claimed condition is not related to service, he or she should thoroughly explain the medical reasons for that conclusion. (Continued on the next page)   If the examiner is unable to provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, then the examiner must state this and provide any information needed to make an opinion, if possible. 4. Thereafter, readjudicate the claim on appeal. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Harris, Attorney Advisor 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.