Citation Nr: 21000602
Decision Date: 01/05/21	Archive Date: 01/05/21

DOCKET NO. 16-58 139
DATE: January 5, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C is remanded.  

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from September 1966 to September 1968.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2013 rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  The appeal was remanded by the Board in November 2019 to determine if the hepatitis was linked to military service. 

An examination was conducted in December 2019.  Unfortunately, the resultant opinion does not comply with the Board’s previous November 2019 remand, so a remand is required.  See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998).  The previous remand specifically requested the examiner to address whether the Veteran’s Hep C is directly related to his presumed exposure to herbicides inservice.  But this was not addressed in the opinion.  

Accordingly, an addendum opinion is needed.  

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. In remanding this case, the Board makes no credibility determination, expressed or implied, at this juncture.

2. Obtain an addendum opinion by a suitably qualified health care professional to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s hepatitis c condition.  An examination of the Veteran should only be scheduled if the examiner determines one is necessary to obtain the requested opinions.  The claims file must be reviewed by the examiner.  The examiner must address the following:

Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s hepatitis condition resulted from active duty service and the presumed exposure to herbicide agents.  

This opinion should not rely on the absence of hepatitis C from the list under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e).  An opinion addressing any link to herbicide agent exposure should be provided.

The term “at least as likely as not” does not mean within the realm of medical possibility, but rather that the medical evidence both for and against a certain conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of such a conclusion as it is to find against it. 

The examiner must provide a complete rationale for his or her opinion(s) in the examination report.  If any of the above requested opinions cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner must state this and provide a rationale for such conclusion.

In rendering this opinion, the examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history. Such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion.  If the medical professional rejects the Veteran’s reports, he or she must provide an explanation for such rejection.  The examiner is not to improperly discount the Veteran’s lay statements or rely solely on an absence of medical evidence in the record to support his or her conclusions.

 

 

G. A. WASIK

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	J. Wade

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.