Citation Nr: 21002275 Decision Date: 01/13/21 Archive Date: 01/13/21 DOCKET NO. 17-25 821 DATE: January 13, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for lipomas, to include as due to Agent Orange exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND Th Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from March 1962 to March 1966. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Lipomas Regrettably, the Board finds a remand is warranted for a VA examination. For the following reasons, the Board finds the Veteran is entitlement to receive a VA examination. The Board finds that the low threshold requirement has been met for a VA examination, and that a remand is required to address the nature and etiology of any lipomas. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d); Menegassi v. Shinseki, 638 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2011), McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006) (in disability compensation claims, VA must provide a medical examination when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability, (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service, (3) an indication that the disability may be associated with the Veteran’s service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for VA to make a decision on the claim). Here, the record reflects evidence of lipomas and removal of lipomas. It has also been conceded that the Veteran served in Vietnam and had exposure to Agent Orange while deployed in Vietnam. See July 2009 Rating Decision, April 2017 Statement of the Case. Notably, the Veteran contends that his exposure to Agent Orange during service was the cause of his lipomas. While lipomas are not listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) and cannot be service connected on a presumptive basis, the Board notes that he may be service connected on a direct basis. Given such, the Veteran should be afforded a medical examination to assess whether his current disability is related to his in-service exposure to Agent Orange. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Secure any additional private and/or VA treatment records pertaining to the Veteran’s lipomas. 2. After the above is completed, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by an appropriate examiner to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s lipomas. The Board recognizes the potential practical difficulties in scheduling an examination in light of the COVID-19 epidemic and requests flexibility and understanding in affording the Veteran any warranted examination.  Access to the claims file must be made available to the examiner for review. Any and all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. The VA examiner should address the following: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or higher degree of probability) that the Veteran’s lipomas manifested in service or is otherwise causally or etiologically related to his military service. (b.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or higher degree of probability) that the Veteran’s lipomas could be a result of herbicide exposure, to include Agent Orange, while in the military? • A complete rationale must be provided for the opinion expressed. A discussion of the facts and medical principles involved including the Veteran’s lay assertions should be considered in giving this opinion, with page references to the evidence used in the decision. 3. THE AOJ MUST REVIEW THE CLAIMS FILE AND ENSURE THAT THE FOREGOING DEVELOPMENT ACTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN FULL. IF ANY DEVELOPMENT IS INCOMPLETE, APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION MUST BE IMPLEMENTED. IF ANY REPORT DOES NOT INCLUDE ADEQUATE RESPONSES TO THE SPECIFIC OPINIONS REQUESTED, IT MUST BE RETURNED TO THE PROVIDING EXAMINER FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION. (continued on the next page) YVETTE R. WHITE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Glaeser, 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.