Citation Nr: 20056982 Decision Date: 08/28/20 Archive Date: 08/28/20 DOCKET NO. 13-24 909A DATE: August 28, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, claimed as due to exposure to herbicide agents, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1968 to March 1970. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an August 2010 rating decision issued by a Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In August 2017, the Board remanded the claim for additional development and, in March 2019, the Board denied it. Thereafter, the Veteran appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a February 2020 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), which the Court granted later that month, VA and the Veteran (the parties) moved to vacate and remand the Board’s decision. The case now returns for further appellate consideration. The Board notes that the Veteran has also perfected an appeal as to the issues of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss and entitlement to an increased rating for other specified trauma and stressor related disorder with unspecified depressive disorder; however, as he has requested a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge in connection with such appeal, the matter will be the subject of a separate Board decision issued at a later date, if otherwise in order. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, claimed as due to exposure to herbicide agents. In March 2019, the Board denied service connection for hypertension on the basis that such disorder was unrelated to the Veteran’s acknowledged in-service exposure to herbicide agents. In reaching such determination, the Board relied, in part, upon a VA opinion obtained in January 2018. However, in the JMPR, the parties found that the Board erred in doing so. Specifically, the parties noted that such opinion was based upon medical research and studies, but did not address the Veteran’s personal medical history or the pertinent facts of the instant case. Thus, the parties determined that the January 2018 medical opinion lacked an adequate rationale. See Bailey v. O’Rourke, 30 Vet. App. 54, 60 (2018) (finding a medical opinion inadequate where “the examiner did not provide any rationale for his opinion that was specific to [the appellant’s] particular medical condition and circumstances”). Therefore, the Board finds a remand is warranted in order to obtain an adequate VA opinion to determine whether there is a relationship between the Veteran’s hypertension and his in-service herbicide exposure. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Forward the record to an appropriate clinician other than the examiner who provided the January 2018 opinion, if possible, for an addendum opinion addressing the etiology of the Veteran’s hypertension. The need for examination of the Veteran is left to the discretion of the clinician selected to write the addendum opinion. Following a review of the record, the clinician should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s hypertension is related to his acknowledged in-service exposure to herbicide agents. In rendering such opinion, the examiner should clearly address the National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine’s Update 11 (2018) in which hypertension was upgraded from its previous classification in the category of “limited or suggestive” evidence of an association with exposure to Agent Orange to the category of “sufficient” evidence of an association. In this regard, according to NAS, “[t]he sufficient category indicates that there is enough epidemiologic evidence to conclude that there is a positive association” between hypertension and herbicide exposure. The examiner is further advised that the opinion should address the inquiry specific to the Veteran, i.e., whether his hypertension is related to his in-service exposure to herbicide agents, rather than the more generalized question of whether hypertension should be acknowledged to be related to such exposure. A rationale for any opinion offered should be provided. A. JAEGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. M. Kelly, 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.