Citation Nr: 21004772 Decision Date: 01/28/21 Archive Date: 01/28/21 DOCKET NO. 13-04 636 DATE: January 28, 2021 REMANDED The appeal for entitlement to service connection for an acquired cardiovascular disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1973 to November 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a June 2011 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2019, the Board denied service connection for a heart disability. The Veteran appealed the Board’s January 2019 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In February 2020, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) filed by both parties to the case, vacated the January 2019 Board decision, and remanded the matter to the Board for further development and analysis consistent with the terms of the Joint Motion. In August 2020 the Board remanded the case for additional development pursuant to the February 2020 Court remand. The case has been returned to the Board for review. Entitlement to service connection for a heart condition is remanded. In August 2020, pursuant to the February 2020 JMR, the Board remanded the issue to obtain an addendum opinion as to whether the Veteran’s Grade I systolic dysfunction noted in a December 2012 echocardiogram is at least as likely as not related to the Veteran’s active service. Specifically, the Board directed that the RO obtain an addendum opinion related to the issue; the Board did not direct that the RO obtain a new in-person VA examination. In September 2020, the RO contacted the Veteran to schedule an in-person examination and the Veteran declined an in-person examination. As such, the October 2020 supplemental statement of the case continued to deny the Veteran’s claim based on the evidence of record. However, as noted above, the August 2020 Board remand directed the RO to obtain an addendum opinion, not an in-person examination. The RO did not obtain an addendum opinion. Accordingly, the RO did not substantially comply with the Board’s August 2020 remand directives. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007); see also Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998); D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008) (holding that there must be substantial compliance with the terms of a Board remand). On remand, the RO must obtain an addendum opinion as to whether the Veteran’s Grade I systolic dysfunction noted in a December 2012 echocardiogram is at least as likely as not related to the Veteran’s active service or secondary to a service-connected disability as directed by the August 2020 Board remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from a physician with appropriate expertise as to whether the Veteran’s Grade I systolic dysfunction noted during a December 2012 echocardiogram is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) etiologically related to his active service. (a.) If not, whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s Grade I systolic dysfunction is proximately due to or the result of his service-connected disabilities. Rationale must be provided for the opinion proffered. In rendering the requested rationale, the examiner must note that it is not required that the Grade I systolic dysfunction is shown to be “predominantly” due to or result of service-connected disabilities, but rather, whether there is any contributing degree of etiological relationship to a service-connected disability. (Continued on the next page)   (b.) If not, whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s Grade I systolic dysfunction is aggravated beyond natural progression by his service-connected disabilities. Rationale must be provided for the opinion proffered. In rendering the requested rationale, the examiner must note that it is not required that the Grade I systolic dysfunction is shown to be aggravated beyond natural progression “predominantly” by a service-connected disability, but rather, whether there is any contributing degree of aggravation beyond natural progression by a service-connected disability. 2. After completion of the above, review the expanded record, including the evidence entered since the most recent statement of the case, and determine whether service connection for a heart disability may be granted. If the benefit sought remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case. The appropriate period should be allowed for response before the appeal is returned to the Board. ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. G. LeMoine, 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.