Citation Nr: 21001188 Decision Date: 01/07/21 Archive Date: 01/07/21 DOCKET NO. 13-06 545A DATE: January 7, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a disability claimed as Parkinson’s disease to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from July 1970 to June 1973. This case is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of an October 2013 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (agency of original jurisdiction or AOJ). The Veteran testified at a video conference hearing before the undersigned in August 2016. A transcript of the proceeding is of record. In March 2017, the Board remanded the claim for additional development. Most recently, this issue was before the Board in August 2019 when it was denied. In June 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMR) that vacated and remanded the portion of the August 2019 decision that denied entitlement to service connection for a disability claimed as Parkinson’s disease to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents is remanded. The Board must now remand this issue to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to ensure compliance with the June 2020 JMR. 1. Entitlement to service connection for disability claimed as Parkinson’s disease to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents is remanded. As determined by a June 2020 JMR, remand is warranted in order to fulfill VA’s duty to assist by obtaining adequate VA examinations and opinions regarding the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for a disability claimed as Parkinson’s disease to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents. VA’s duty to assist includes obtaining a medical opinion when such an examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision on the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d) (2012). Furthermore, when VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The June 2020 JMR determined that the Board erred when it failed to ensure the VA’s duty to assist was satisfied when it relied on an examination that was inadequate for rating purposes. The August 2017 VA examination, which included an examination by a Board-certified neurologist, noted that the Veteran had not previously had a neurologic evaluation for Parkinson’s disease. The parties to the JMR assert that the examination is inadequate as the examiner purportedly explicitly identified additional information that could be obtained to clarify the diagnosis. However, the JMR did not identify this specific additional information other than noting the neurologic examination was not previously performed – but did not discuss the fact that the VA examination was performed by a neurologist. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate with the claims folder updated VA treatment records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by a neurologist to determine the nature of the disability claimed as Parkinson’s disease. The examiner must review the claims file. The examiner should identify the criteria for diagnosing Parkinson’s disease and the types of findings, testing, etc. used to diagnose Parkinson’s disease, and specifically explain why or why not the Veteran has a current diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease. If the Veteran does not manifest Parkinson’s disease, to the extent possible clarify the diagnosis and provide opinion as to a diagnosis/symptoms are at least as likely as not attributable to herbicide exposure in service. The examiner is advised that a negative opinion cannot be based solely on the fact that the disability is not on the list of diseases that are presumptively associated with exposure to herbicide agents, and current literature should be reviewed and considered. The examiner must provide all findings, along with 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. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Patrick C. Brady, Attorney Advisor 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.