Citation Nr: 21061642 Decision Date: 10/04/21 Archive Date: 10/04/21 DOCKET NO. 17-37 613 DATE: October 4, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for vertigo is remanded. Service connection for a blood disorder is remanded. Service connection for a vision disorder, manifested as loss of depth perception, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1989 to March 2010. These matters are before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a June 2013 rating decision of a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In his July 2017 substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. The Veteran withdrew his request for a hearing in July 2020. Accordingly, the Veteran's hearing request has been withdrawn. The Board notes that the Veteran's attorney included the issues of entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disorder and tinnitus in their July 2020 brief. However, service connection for tinnitus and left shoulder arthritis were granted on the basis of clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in a September 2017. An initial rating and effective date were assigned for each disability. As such, these issues are no longer before the Board for consideration. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1977). 1. Service connection for vertigo is remanded. The Veteran was scheduled for a VA examination pursuant to his vertigo claim; however, in March 2017, the Veteran requested to reschedule the appointment as he works out of the country. It is not clear why the examination was not rescheduled. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of service connection for vertigo because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran has a vertigo disorder incurred in or due to active service. As such, a remand is necessary for an examination. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006). 2. Service connection for a blood disorder is remanded. Service treatment records show the Veteran had macrocytic anemia noted in May and June 2009. Currently, the Veteran asserts he currently has a blood disorder incurred during active service. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of service connection for a blood disorder because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran has a blood disorder incurred in or due to active service. As such, a remand is necessary for an examination. Id. 3. Service connection for a vision disorder, manifested as loss of depth perception, is remanded. Service treatment records show the Veteran failed June 2005 and 2006 vision examinations as they pertain to depth perception. The Veteran passed visions tests in June 2008 and June 2009. Nonetheless, the Veteran asserts he currently has a vision disorder manifested as loss of depth perception. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of service connection for a vision disorder because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran has a vision disorder incurred in or due to active service. As such, a remand is necessary for an examination. Id. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Veteran should be given the opportunity to identify any outstanding private or VA treatment records relevant to the claims on appeal. After obtaining any necessary authorization from the Veteran, all outstanding records should be obtained, to include updated VA treatment records. For private treatment records, make at least two (2) attempts to obtain records from any identified sources. If any such records are unavailable, inform the Veteran and his representative and afford him an opportunity to submit any copies in their possession. For federal records, all reasonable attempts should be made to obtain such records. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran must be notified of the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 2. Following the receipt of outstanding records, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his claimed vertigo disorder. The examiner must review the claims file. A copy of this remand must be provided to the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The need for further in-person physical examination is left to the discretion of the examiner. The examiner must respond to the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's vertigo or vertigo disorder is of service onset or otherwise related to his military service? A clear rationale for all opinions must be provided, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance. If the examiner opines that any of the above questions cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation, then a detailed medical explanation as to why this is so must be provided. A rationale should be provided for any opinion offered. If it is not possible to provide a specific opinion regarding the above questions, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). 3. Following the receipt of outstanding records, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his claimed blood disorder. The examiner must review the claims file. A copy of this remand must be provided to the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The need for further in-person physical examination is left to the discretion of the examiner. The examiner must respond to the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's blood disorder is of service onset or otherwise related to his military service, to include any in-service findings of anemia? A clear rationale for all opinions must be provided, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance. If the examiner opines that any of the above questions cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation, then a detailed medical explanation as to why this is so must be provided. A rationale should be provided for any opinion offered. If it is not possible to provide a specific opinion regarding the above questions, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). 4. Following the receipt of outstanding records, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his claimed vision disorder. The examiner must review the claims file. A copy of this remand must be provided to the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The need for further in-person physical examination is left to the discretion of the examiner. The examiner must respond to the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's vision disorder, to include loss of depth perception, is of service onset or otherwise related to his military service? The examiner should specifically address the significance, if any, of the June 2005 and 2006 vision examinations. A clear rationale for all opinions must be provided, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance. If the examiner opines that any of the above questions cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation, then a detailed medical explanation as to why this is so must be provided. A rationale should be provided for any opinion offered. If it is not possible to provide a specific opinion regarding the above questions, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). 3. A copy of the notification letter must be included in the claims file and must reflect that it was sent to the Veteran's last known address of record. The notice must state that it is the Veteran's responsibility to report for any scheduled examination and to cooperate in the development of the claim, and that the consequences for failure to report for an examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158, 3.655. KRISTY L. ZADORA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. M. Donahue Boushehri, 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.