Citation Nr: 21001895 Decision Date: 01/12/21 Archive Date: 01/12/21 DOCKET NO. 13-34 141A DATE: January 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for kidney cancer is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND Veteran served from February 3, 1966 to January 31, 1969. 1. Entitlement to service connection for kidney cancer is remanded. The Veteran has asserted he had kidney cancer which resulted in his kidney being removed in 1973. He relates this condition to either exposure to herbicide agents or contaminated water in Camp LeJeune. The record reflects the Veteran was stationed at Camp Lejeune during active service from January of 1968 to January of 1969. The following disease are deemed associated with exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune: kidney cancer, liver cancer, Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, adult leukemia, multiple myelodysplastic syndromes, and bladder cancer. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(f).   An April 2011 VA examiner stated that Veteran was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of the association with TCE and PCE in the water at Camp Lejeune. The VA examiner stated that it is at least as likely that Veteran’s cancer was caused by or a result of Veteran’s exposure to the contaminated water. This was later addressed by a subsequent VA medical examination also done in April 2011. The examiner stated that there was limited evidence between TCE/PCE exposure and subsequent kidney cancer. The examiner stated that such limited evidence in scientific literature made it less likely than not that the Veteran’s kidney pathology was caused by or a result of exposure to TCE/PCE contamination at the grounds of Camp Lejeune. Another medical opinion was provided February 2014 regarding the previous two opinions. Nevertheless, the VA has not confirmed whether the Veteran’s reports of cancer and subsequent removal of a kidney. Although the Board remanded previously to obtain the records related to the reported treatment. It appears only a small subset of the relevant records were requested by the AOJ. The AOJ specifically requested records from December 1973 through January 1974; however, the Veteran reported continued check-ups every 3 months, then 6 months, then 1 year following the removal of his kidney. These check-ups involved an intravenous pyelogram (IVP) test done at the VA hospital. Therefore, any records relating to the Veteran’s treatment for his removed kidney are relevant and proper attempts should be made to obtain them.   Further, the Veteran indicated he received treatment from a private provider for his kidney condition. Upon remand, the AOJ should request the Veteran to identify any private providers and assist the Veteran in associating those records with the Veteran’s claims file. Finally, the AOJ should attempt to verify whether the Veteran’s kidney was removed. No imaging has been requested to confirm this condition. Only statements from examiners that the current medical evidence does not show the kidney has been removed. The Board finds that there is insufficient evidence on the record to make a conclusive decision on if Veteran suffered from kidney cancer and if his kidney is missing. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Veteran is informed that he must present evidence that he was treated for kidney cancer. Request and obtain VA treatment records (outpatient and inpatient) at VAMC in Dayton, Ohio pertaining to kidney treatment the Veteran received from December 1973 to December 1975 at the Wade Park VAMC in Cleveland Ohio. 2. Contact the Veteran and ask him to submit an authorization for release of medical records for any private treatment providers relevant to the disability on issue on appeal. If a response is received, request the authorized records.   3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine if the Veteran does or does not have both his kidneys. If upon completion no the above action the claim remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedure. H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Konieczny, Adam 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.