Citation Nr: 20052945 Decision Date: 08/10/20 Archive Date: 08/10/20 DOCKET NO. 15-19 130 DATE: August 10, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychological disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for hematuria, to include the propriety of the severance of service connection, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1966 to April 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This case was remanded in May 2018 for further development. In April 2018, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge; a transcript of that hearing is of record. The Board must correct a typographical error in its previous remand. The Board mischaracterized the issue of entitlement to a compensable evaluation for hematuria. Notably, the February 2014 rating decision on appeal granted service connection; thus, the issue appealed was an increased rating, not entitlement to service connection. The Board regrets the error. Since the Board’s remand, entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability was granted. See May 2020 rating decision. Because this decision represents a full grant of the benefits sought, the issue is no longer on appeal. 1. All issues. The Board remanded this matter, in part, to obtain records from the military hospital at Fort Riley. See May 2018 Board remand. The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) sent a letter to the Veteran requesting specific dates he sought treatment at Fort Riley. See May 2019 VA correspondence. The letter was returned as undeliverable in June 2019, seemingly because the final line of the Veteran’s address was not visible to the Postal Service. The AOJ did not make any attempts to re-send its correspondence or request records from throughout the Veteran’s service. Because the AOJ did not adequately attempt to obtain such records, remand is necessary. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in February 2014, wherein the examiner found the Veteran did not have a heart disability. Since that time, VA treatment records reflect a history of coronary artery disease. See, e.g., March 2017 and May 2018 VA treatment records. Remand is necessary for a medical opinion clarifying whether the Veteran has a heart disability. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should obtain copies of VA treatment records for the Veteran’s disabilities from July 2019 to the present. 2. The AOJ should obtain in-patient hospital records from Fort Riley during the Veteran’s military service. The AOJ should search for records during the Veteran’s entire service or time at Fort Riley, if the exact dates of his treatment cannot be discerned. Because such records are presumably in the custody of a Federal department or agency, the amount of effort needed to be expended in obtaining these records is governed by 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). 3. After the development in the first two directives is completed, the AOJ should arrange for a VA medical opinion, with examination (or telehealth interview) of the Veteran only if deemed necessary by a medical professional, to determine the nature and likely cause of any heart disability. The examiner should review the claim file (including this remand) and note such review was conducted. Based on review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion with detailed rationale that responds to the following: (a.) Please identify, by diagnosis, all heart disabilities present during the appeal period (from December 2012). March 2017 and May 2018 VA treatment records indicating coronary artery disease must be discussed. (b.) For each heart disability diagnosed, is it at least as likely as not (50% or greater probability) that such disability was either incurred in or otherwise related to the Veteran’s military service? Please explain why. The examiner must discuss the Veteran’s reports of chest pain in service, continuing since that time. 4. If upon completion of the above action the issues remain denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Sandler, 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.