Citation Nr: 21062281 Decision Date: 10/06/21 Archive Date: 10/06/21 DOCKET NO. 18-49 643 DATE: October 6, 2021 ORDER Service connection for restrictive pericarditis, status post-pericardiectomy, is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's restrictive pericarditis, status post-pericardiectomy, is aggravated by his service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). CONCLUSION OF LAW Resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor, the criteria for entitlement to service connection for restrictive pericarditis, status post-pericardiectomy have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1964 to April 1968. The Veteran testified at a Board videoconference hearing before the undersigned in May 2019. In August 2019, February 2020, and May 2020, the Board remanded this claim for additional development. Service Connection The Veteran asserts his pericarditis is due to his exposure to asbestos or herbicide agents in service, or secondary to his service-connected PTSD. Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty or for aggravation of preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a), service connection may also be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to or the result of service-connected disease or injury. Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show: (1) a current disability; (2) a service-connected disability; and (3) a nexus between the current disability and the service-connected disability. See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1988). As to the third Wallin element, the current disability may be either (a) proximately caused by or (b) proximately aggravated by a service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995) (en banc). It is the Board's responsibility to determine whether a preponderance of the evidence supports the claim or whether the evidence is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether there is a preponderance of evidence against the claim, in which case the claim must be denied. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When, after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises regarding service origin, the degree of disability, or any other point, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. By reasonable doubt is meant one which exists because of an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The Veteran has a diagnosis of pericarditis status post-pericardiectomy (see April 2016 VA treatment record) and is service-connected for PTSD (see August 1999 rating decision). In a May 2021, a VA medical opinion was obtained, in part, to address the questions of whether the Veteran's pericarditis was caused or aggravated by his service-connected PTSD. The May 2021 VA examiner reviewed the Veteran's claims file and opined that the pericarditis not caused by the PTSD, as there was no "absolute relationship" between the two disabilities. Regarding the question of aggravation, the examiner stated the baseline level of severity of the Veteran's pericarditis could not be determined based on the medical records or the Veteran's history. However, the examiner also stated the current severity of the Veteran's pericarditis was greater than baseline, and noted that PTSD was associated with pericarditis. In light of the foregoing evidence, and resolving reasonable doubt in the favor of the Veteran, the Board concludes that service connection for restrictive pericarditis, status post-pericardiectomy, secondary to service-connected PTSD is warranted. See Allen, supra; Ward v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 233 (2019). As the Board has granted secondary service connection it need not address direct service connection, or any other theories for service connection, in this matter. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Fletcher, Kathleen 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.