Citation Nr: 21004291
Decision Date: 01/26/21	Archive Date: 01/26/21

DOCKET NO. 17-04 627
DATE: January 26, 2021

REMANDED

The claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded.  

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from June 1967 to April 1971.  This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a rating decision by a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO).

In December 2018, the Board remanded this claim for additional medical inquiry.  The case must again be remanded.  The medical commentary requested in the remand has not been provided.  See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance with previous remand directives).  

The Veteran asserts in part that he developed hypertension as the result of service in the Republic of Vietnam and exposure to herbicides there.  

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

Return the case to the VA examiner who conducted the August 2016 and October 2019 examinations (or to a suitable substitute) for issuance of an addendum medical opinion.  A new medical examination is not necessary.  After reviewing the claims file, the examiner should answer the following question.

Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of 50 percent or more) that hypertension is related to a disease, event, or injury during service?

In answering this question, address the question of whether hypertension relates to herbicide exposure in Vietnam. 

Although hypertension may not be presumed service connected based on herbicide exposure, the herbicide exposure must nevertheless be considered when deciding whether hypertension as likely as not relates to service in Vietnam.

Please explain in detail any opinion provided.

 

 

G. A. WASIK

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Christopher McEntee, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.