Citation Nr: 21003405 Decision Date: 01/21/21 Archive Date: 01/21/21 DOCKET NO. 15-28 544 DATE: January 21, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for stomach problems with reflux and hiccups is dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), to include as secondary to service-connected disabilities, is remanded. FINDING OF FACT An August 2020 rating decision granted entitlement to service connection for stomach problems with reflux and hiccups, effective July 31, 2013. CONCLUSION OF LAW As the claim has been granted in full, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the claim at this time. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(5). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1993 to April 1994 and June 1994 to January 1998. In January 2017, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of the hearing is of record. In August 2018, the Board remanded the claim for further development. In August 2013, the Veteran applied for service connection for “stomach problems with reflux and hiccups (spasms of the diaphragm) and regurgitation of food.” However, in its July 2015 Statement of the Case, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) recharacterized the issues as entitlement to service connection for stomach problems with reflux and hiccups, entitlement to service connection for spasms of the diaphragm, and entitlement to service connection for GERD. Regarding the issues of stomach problems with reflux and hiccups and spasms of the diaphragm, the Board notes that a hiccup occurs if something irritates the diaphragm, it can spasm forcing a person to suddenly suck air into your throat, where it hits the voice box and creates the distinct “hic!” sound. See Reviewed by Renee A. Alli, MD, Why do I Hiccup (December 19, 2020), https://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/why-do-i-hiccup#1. Therefore, after considering Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), the Board finds that it is appropriate to recharacterize the claims of entitlement to service connection for stomach problems with reflux and hiccups and entitlement to service connection for spasms of the diaphragm as entitlement to service connection for stomach problems with reflux and hiccups. As such, the Board will not address a separate issue of entitlement to service connection for spasms of the diaphragm. Dismissal The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. Analysis On August 13, 2020, the AOJ granted in full entitlement to service connection for stomach problems with reflux and hiccups. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(5), the Board may dismiss any appeal that fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. As the AOJ granted in full the benefit sought by the Veteran, there is no remaining allegation of error of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction over the appeal, and it is dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran contends that his GERD is secondary to his service-connected disabilities. In August 2018, the Board remanded the claim for further development. The Board noted that in April 2014, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his GERD. The examiner determined that the condition was less likely than not proximately due to or the result of the Veteran’s service-connected conditions as there was “no medical documentation to link these conditions together.” However, the VA examiner did not express an opinion regarding aggravation. The Board remanded the claim to obtain an opinion regarding aggravation. In June 2019, the AOJ obtained an addendum opinion. The examiner stated that the Veteran’s treatment records did not contain a GERD diagnosis. Therefore, no nexus or plausible secondary relationship is established, and no aggravation is plausible. The Board notes that the April 2014 VA examiner provided a diagnosis of GERD. Additionally, the Veteran’s VA treatment records document a GERD diagnosis. Therefore, the Board finds the June 2019 VA examination to be inadequate. As directed under Barr, once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination, it must provide an adequate one. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). As such, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his GERD. See id. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate all outstanding relevant VA and private treatment records with the claims file. 2. Schedule a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s GERD. The complete record, to include a copy of this remand and the claims folder, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examination report must include a notation that this record review took place. Based on a review of the entire record, the examiner should determine if is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s GERD was caused by or aggravated (i.e. permanently worsened beyond the normal progression of that disease) by his service-connected disabilities, to include the use of medications necessitated for the treatment of any service-connected disabilities? If the examiner finds that the Veteran’s GERD was aggravated by the service-connected disabilities, the examiner must identify the baseline level of the disability that existed before aggravation by the service-connected disabilities occurred. The supporting rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. The examiner should consider the Veteran’s lay statements. 3. Then, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afford them the opportunity to respond before the file is returned to the Board for further consideration. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Moore 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.