Citation Nr: 21001541 Decision Date: 01/08/21 Archive Date: 01/08/21 DOCKET NO. 15-05 041 DATE: January 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an esophageal disorder to include Barrett’s esophagus, dysphasia, and esophageal stricture, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably in the U.S. Army from January 1979 until April 1979. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2014rating decision of the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Phoenix, Arizona. The case has since been transferred to the RO in St. Paul, Minnesota. In April 2018 the Veteran presented testimony before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at the RO in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Service Connection Remand is required for an addendum opinion. The Board is obligated by law to ensure that the RO complies with its directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). RO compliance with remand directives is not optional or discretionary and the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure remand compliance. Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. Although a Veteran may identify a particular disorder when he or she files a claim, the scope of the claim cannot be limited only to the disorder stated, but must be considered a claim for any disorder that may reasonably be encompassed by several factors including the description of the claim, the symptoms the claimant describes, and the information the claimant submits or that VA obtains in support of the claim. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). The Board remanded the case in July 2020 for an addendum opinion. The remand directives instructed the examiner to provide an opinion regarding whether it is clear and unmistakable (undebatable) that each diagnosed gastrointestinal disorder was not aggravated during active duty. A September 2020 VA opinion was provided. The examiner opined it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s esophageal stricture, dysphagia, and Barrett’s esophagus were aggravated beyond normal progression by service. The examiner refused to answer the remand directive for each diagnosed esophageal disorder, stating that esophageal stricture was the only condition that was noted to be present in service and is the only condition that can be “legitimately addressed in the opinion.” The examiner noted the other conditions of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), hiatal hernia, and Barrett’s esophagus were all diagnosed years after service. However, the where there is not a prior, final decision on one diagnosis based on competent medical evidence that justifies separating a new diagnosis into a separate claim, and the claim is still in the initial adjudicatory phase, the Veteran’s statements do not limit the scope of the claim. Accordingly, remand is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion, from an examiner other than the 2020 VA examiner if possible, regarding the etiology of esophageal disorder to include Barrett’s esophagus, dysphasia, and esophageal stricture, the from a VA examiner. The entire claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. If an examination is deemed necessary, it shall be provided. An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. First, for each diagnosed esophageal disorder, the examiner must provide an opinion regarding whether each diagnosed esophageal disorder clearly and unmistakably (undebatable) pre-existed service. Second, the examiner must provide an opinion regarding whether each pre-existing esophageal disorder, clearly and unmistakably (undebatable) was not aggravated by the Veteran’s active service? Third, for any other diagnosed esophageal disorder, the examiner must provide an opinion regarding whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the disorder had onset in, or is otherwise related to, active military service. The examiner must address the following: 1) relevant 1979 STRs; 2) April 2019 VA examination diagnosis; 3) the Veteran’s February 2020 lay statements; and 4) the Board hearing testimony regarding no dilatations from age 7 to military service. K. MILLIKAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Bruton, 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.