Citation Nr: 20043789 Decision Date: 06/29/20 Archive Date: 06/29/20 DOCKET NO. 16-01 075 DATE: June 29, 2020 REMANDED The issue of service connection for polymyalgia rheumatica (also claimed as symptoms similar to chronic fatigue syndrome) due to chemical exposure including herbicides, trichloroethylene (TCE), and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) is remanded. The issue of service connection for idiopathic cardiomyopathy, to include as secondary to polymyalgia rheumatica is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from July 1976 to November 1979. These issues were previously before the Board. In September 2018, the Board remanded the appeal to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. Following evidentiary development, the VA Appeals Management Center (AMC) continued the previous denials in a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) issued in May 2020. The Veteran’s VA claims file has been returned to the Board for further appellate proceedings. In the September 2018 decision, the Board directed the AOJ to “confirm the timeframe in which the Veteran served at El Toro. This information is to be placed in a memorandum and associated with the electronic claims file.” The Board also directed the AOJ to undertake all appropriate development related to the verification of herbicides in areas outside the Republic of Vietnam, Thailand, or the Korean Demilitarized Zone. There is no memorandum of the AOJ confirming the Veteran’s period of service at El Toro associated with the electronic claims file, despite numerous requests from the Veteran’s attorney requesting the compliance with the Board’s remand directives. Compliance with remand directives by the originating agency is not optional or discretionary. The Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure remand compliance. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The Board observes that there was no development taken to verify the Veteran’s contentions. This may have been due to the Veteran not timely responding to either the initial request for clarifying information from the AOJ in September 2019 or the second request in December 2019. The Veteran’s attorney eventually provided clarifying information in March 2020. In the March 2020 letter, the Veteran contended that he served at El Toro from May 1977 to November 1979 and that he was exposed “at the location now known as MWSG-37 in Hangar 296 (EPA-Site 24).” The Veteran and his attorney are reminded that the “duty to assist is not always a one-way street” and that timely response and cooperation is necessary for the Veteran’s appeal to be fully developed. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991) (“The duty to assist is not always a one-way street. If a veteran wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining the putative evidence. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Confirm the timeframe in which the Veteran served at El Toro. This information is to be placed in a memorandum and associated with the electronic claims file. 2. After confirming the timeframe during which the Veteran served at El Toro, contact the Veteran and request that he provide additional clarifying information, if any, as to the specific nature of the alleged contamination at El Toro, to include the nature, dates, and locations of any claimed exposure. Undertake all appropriate development to verify these contentions. 3. In addition to the development above, undertake all appropriate development related to the verification of herbicide agents in locations other than the Republic of Vietnam, Korean Demilitarized Zone, or Thailand. 4. After completing the above development, obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s polymyalgia rheumatica (also claimed as symptoms similar to chronic fatigue syndrome) and idiopathic cardiomyopathy. The Veteran’s claims file, including a copy of this decision and medical literatures submitted by the Veteran, should be made available to the clinician. The clinician should provide an opinion with supporting rationale. The need for another examination is left to the discretion of the clinician offering the addendum opinion. Based on the review of the files, the examiner(s) should state whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or higher probability) that any polymyalgia rheumatica (also claimed as symptoms similar chronic fatigue syndrome) and idiopathic cardiomyopathy diagnosed during the pendency of this claim had their onset in service or are otherwise related to service. The examiner(s) should also state whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or higher probability) that any idiopathic cardiomyopathy was caused or aggravated (permanently worsened) by the Veteran’s polymyalgia rheumatica. In answering these questions, the examiner(s) must address the Veteran’s contentions and any studies obtained by the RO as a result of this remand, by the Veteran, or his attorney regarding contamination at El Toro. JAMES L. MARCH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Yun 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.