Citation Nr: 21003297 Decision Date: 01/21/21 Archive Date: 01/21/21 DOCKET NO. 15-09 508 DATE: January 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an esophageal condition, to include as due to chemical exposures and/or asbestos exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a thyroid disorder, to include as due to chemical exposures and/or asbestos exposure and/or secondary to an esophageal disorder, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1982 to January 1986. He served in the United States Navy. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during an October 2018 videoconference hearing. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an esophageal disorder, to include as due to chemical exposures and/or asbestos exposure, is remanded. Although the Board regrets the additional delay, remand is required for an adequate opinion. Where VA provides the Veteran with an examination in a service connection claim, the examination must be adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). The Board has recharacterized the Veteran’s claimed esophageal cancer claim more broadly as a claim for esophageal conditions to better reflect that the Veteran seeks service connection for symptoms regardless of how those symptoms are diagnosed or labeled. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). The Board finds that the instructions provided to the examiner from the September 2020 Board remand did not request a sufficiently broad opinion. Though the Veteran initially claimed the disability as esophageal cancer, the Board finds that the claim should have been broadened to include any diagnosed esophageal conditions. In the September 2020 VA examination, the examiner determined that the Veteran’s esophageal cancer was less likely than not due to service, to include his exposure to asbestos and other chemicals as the cancer was more likely a progression of the Veteran’s diagnosed Barrett’s esophagus, which was caused by his reoccurring reflux. However, as the Veteran is claiming service connection for an esophageal condition, an opinion must be requested that addresses any etiological relationship between his in-service exposure and any diagnosable esophageal condition, to include all the previously diagnosed conditions. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a thyroid disorder, to include as due to chemical exposures and/or asbestos exposure and/or as secondary to esophageal disorders is remanded. This issue is remanded as it is intertwined with the claim for service connection for esophgeal disorders. The November 2014 and September 2020 VA examiners provided opinions that the hypothyroidism is caused by the radiation treatment for the Veteran’s esophageal cancer. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (holding that issues are inextricably intertwined and must be considered together when a decision concerning one could have a significant impact on the other). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an adequate VA opinion regarding the Veteran’s claimed esophageal conditions, to include esophageal cancer, Barrett’s esophagus, and any diagnosable reflux disorders. 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. The examiner must elicit a full history of the Veteran’s active service, to include chemical exposures and/or asbestos exposure, and consider and address such history in all conclusions reached. (a.) The examiner must provide an opinion regarding whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s esophageal conditions, to include esophageal cancer, Barrett’s esophagus, and any diagnosable reflux conditions had onset in, or is otherwise caused by, the Veteran’s military service, to include any exposure to chemical and/or asbestos exposure. The examiner must specifically address the Veteran’s conceded exposure to asbestos during his military service. 2. Notify the Veteran that it is his responsibility to report for any scheduled examination and to cooperate in the development of the claims, and that the consequences for failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claims. 38C.F.R. §§3.158, 3.655 (2018). In the event that the Veteran does not report for any scheduled examination, documentation must be obtained which shows that notice scheduling the examination was sent to the last known address. It must also be indicated whether any notice that was sent was returned as undeliverable. K. MILLIKAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Ashley Ki 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.