Citation Nr: 20053869 Decision Date: 08/13/20 Archive Date: 08/13/20 DOCKET NO. 13-19 296 DATE: August 13, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to service-connected disabilities, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1970 to April 1972. The Veteran died in December 2016. In October 2017, the RO determined that the appellant, the Veteran’s daughter, applied for and was a proper substitute claimant with respect to the Veteran’s pending appeal. See 38U.S.C. § 5121A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.1000(a). This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2013 rating decisions by Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Decatur, Georgia. In January 2017, the appellant and witness, N.C., testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a travel Board hearing; a transcript of the hearing is of record. In June 2018, the Board remanded the claim for additional medical records. 1. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to service-connected disabilities, is remanded. The Veteran has not yet been provided with an examination regarding his claim for hypertension. Consistent with VA’s duty to assist, under McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006), a VA medical examination must be provided when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of disability, and (2) evidence establishing that event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the Veteran’s service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i). The Veteran’s claim for service connection for hypertension meets the McClendon elements for a VA examination. The evidence of record shows a diagnosis of hypertension during the period on appeal. See May 2015 VA Treatment Record. The Veteran is competent to report events that occurred during service. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). The Veteran was service connected for coronary artery disease as due to herbicide exposure, and the appellant asserts that the Veteran’s hypertension is as due to service. See June 2018 Board Remand; see also January 2017 Hearing Transcript. Finally, there is insufficient information on which to decide the claim and therefore a remand is necessary to obtain an examination for hypertension. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain outstanding private records identified, to include records from Bayfront Hospital, Fairview Park Hospital, Coliseum Medical Center, Georgia Cancer Center, and Serenity Place Hospice House. In the event of a negative search, if it is determined that additional research requests would be futile, then a memorandum of unavailability should be drafted and added to the record. 2. Obtain an opinion from an appropriate examiner regarding the Veteran’s hypertension claim. The examiner is asked to answer the following: a. Is it at least as likely as not (i.e. 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s hypertension either began during or was otherwise caused by his military service, including his exposure to herbicide agents. b. Is it at least as likely as not the Veteran’s hypertension is caused or aggravated (beyond natural progression) by the Veteran’s service connected disabilities, to specifically include lung cancer, posttraumatic stress disorder, coronary artery disease, and medications taken therefor. 3. If aggravation is found, the examiner should attempt to quantify the degree of additional disability resulting from the aggravation (specifying the baseline level of disability and current level of severity, based on consideration of VA’s rating schedule). 4. A clearly-stated rationale for any opinion offered should be provided and must not be based solely on the lack of any evidence of a diagnosis of hypertension in the Veteran’s service treatment records or immediately thereafter. In this regard, a discussion of the relevant facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. A complete rationale for all opinions offered should be provided. MARJORIE A. AUER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Kelsey Love, 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.