Citation Nr: 21001890 Decision Date: 01/12/21 Archive Date: 01/12/21 DOCKET NO. 18-40 217 DATE: January 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for lead poisoning residuals to include limited nerve damage and/or neurological symptoms is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder to include bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from September 1982 to May 1986. The appeal is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a January 2015 rating decision of a regional office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In a September 2019 decision, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for right knee disability; frostbite of fingertips of the left-hand; and residuals of lead poisoning to include limited nerve damage and/or neurological symptoms. In that same decision, the Board also remanded the issue of service connection for acquired mental condition to include bipolar disorder, anxiety and PTSD. In August 2020, the Veteran appealed the portion of the Board’s decision that denied service connection for residuals of lead poisoning to include limited nerve damage and/or neurological symptoms to the United States Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims (Court) which granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) filed by the parties. The appellant expressly waived his appeal to those parts of the Board’s decision that denied entitlement to service connection for right knee disability and frostbite of the fingertip of the left hand. The appellant also indicated that the Court dismiss the appeal with respect to those issues. Pursuant to a JMPR, in an August 2020 Order, the Court partially vacated the Board’s September 2019 decision with regard to the issue of entitlement to service connection for residuals of lead poisoning, and dismissed the appeal with regard to right knee disability and frostbite of the fingertip of the left hand. The matter was remanded to the Board consistent with the terms of the joint motion. 1. Entitlement to service connection for lead poisoning residuals to include limited nerve damage and/or neurological symptoms. The Veteran maintains that his work in the Air Force as a cable splicer repeatedly exposed him to toxic lead. In the August 2020 joint motion, the parties agreed that the Board erred by rejecting the lay statements submitted by the appellant and his fellow servicemen of lead-exposure during service. See JMPR at 3. In dismissing the lay statements of record as not probative, the Board also failed to address whether these lay statements were credible. Additionally, the parties state that the Board should consider whether a VA medical examination is warranted to determine if appellant has any current disabilities related to lead exposure in service. Id at 4. In October 2020, the Veteran submitted additional evidence and arguments for the issue of service connection for residuals of lead poisoning and seeks a medical opinion regarding the residual effects of that exposure. See Post-Court Brief (hereinafter Brief) dated October 2020. The Veteran states that “numerous federal agencies have recognized cable splicing as an occupation that puts workers at high risk of lead poisoning. The Occupational Safety & Health Administration’s Technical Manual describes the use of lead pots in cable splicing and sets forth safety controls for this type of work.” See Brief at 2. He maintains that his “current diagnoses are consistent with lead poisoning.” See Brief at 3. Specifically, the Veteran states he has been diagnosed with both mental illness and neurological conditions and have been treated for “tremors, numbness and cramping in his hands, upper thighs, and feet” and diagnosed with “paresthesia, a disturbance of skin sensation that indicates nerve damage.” Id. In support, the Veteran re-submitted research on lead poisoning and excerpts from medical records describing neurological and knee issues. See exhibits attached with October 2020 Brief, previously received in March 2016. Given the broad claim of mental and neurological diagnoses, all conditions which the Veteran asserts are residuals of lead poisoning, the Board observes that develop should be undertaken to contact appropriate sources in order to determine any information regarding internal or external lead exposure data for veterans who worked as a Cable Splicing Installation Maintenance Specialist in the Air Force in the 1980s, or whether there are records recognizing cable splicing as an occupation associated with high risk of lead exposure. 2. Entitlement to service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder to include bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder and PTSD. The Board observes that development accomplished have been restricted to the PTSD claim as reflected in the RO’s formal findings of lack of information required to corroborate stressful events for the claim for service connection for PTSD. See Memorandum from Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) dated October 2019. However, the JSRRC Coordinator found that although the veteran’s claimed stressors could not be corroborated, “his presence in Turkey was confirmed via an STR entry.” Id. Additionally, the record reflects mental health disorders other than PTSD, where the Veteran has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, and schizoaffective disorder. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). To that end, the Board observes that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination for his claimed acquired psychiatric disorder, and there is no etiological medical opinion of record taking into consideration his lay statements. Thus, on remand, the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination for mental disorders other than PTSD for which he may be entitled to service connection. By this remand, the Board makes no determination, express or implied, concerning the credibility of any lay statements on file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact appropriate sources in order to determine any information regarding internal or external lead exposure data for veterans who worked as a Cable Splicing Installation Maintenance Specialist in the Air Force in the 1980s, and verify whether there are records recognizing cable splicing as an occupation associated with high risk of lead exposure. In verifying the information, the AOJ is asked to consider lay statements and additional evidence submitted by the Veteran including reference to the Occupational Safety & Health Administration’s Technical Manual which describes the use of lead pots in cable splicing and review medical excerpts re-submitted by the Veteran. See Correspondences dated March 2016 and October 2020. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any current acquired psychiatric disorder. The electronic claims file should be accessible to the examiner in connection with the examination. Offer an opinion on whether the Veteran meets the DSM-5 criteria for a diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder. If so, for each diagnosis, is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s current psychiatric disorder is etiologically related to his active duty service? A complete rationale for any opinion expressed is requested. 3. Upon completion of the requested development and any additional development deemed appropriate, adjudicate the claims on appeal. If the determination remains unfavorable, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case which addresses all relevant evidence. The Veteran and his representative should be afforded the applicable time period in which to respond. Then, return the case to the Board. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. An, 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.