Citation Nr: 21062335
Decision Date: 10/07/21	Archive Date: 10/07/21

DOCKET NO. 14-30 615
DATE: October 7, 2021

REMANDED

Service connection for hepatitis C is remanded.

A total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from May 1966 to September 1967.

In July 2020, the Board denied the Veteran's claims, which he appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("CAVC" or "the Court").  In June 2021, the Court issued an order that vacated the Board's decision and remanded the claims for compliance with a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR).  

Specifically, the Court instructed the Board to obtain a new nexus opinion for the Veteran's hepatitis C which addresses the Veteran's risk factors for hepatitis C and that specifically notes that hepatitis C was not discovered until 1989, many years after the Veteran was discharged.  

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a TDIU, to include on an extraschedular basis.  The Board finds that a TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the claim for service connection for hepatitis C.  As such, the issue of entitlement to a TDIU is remanded as well.  

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

Obtain an addendum opinion to address the etiology of his hepatitis C.  If a physical examination is necessary to answer the Board's questions, one should be scheduled. The examiner should specifically answer the following question:

(a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's hepatitis C began in or was otherwise caused by the Veteran's active military service, specifically as a result of either an air gun vaccination or blood transfusion?  Why or why not?

The examiner should specifically address the Veteran's risk factors for Hepatitis C and acknowledge the fact that Hepatitis C was not a diagnosable condition until 1989. 

In providing the requested opinion, the examiner should review the following: June 15, 2021 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) (labeled CAVC decision in VBMS) and Veteran's August 26, 2020 Motion for Reconsideration (labeled Correspondence in VBMS) for an explanation as to why a previous medical opinion was found to be inadequate.  The examiner should explain the relevance, if any, of the evidence and arguments.

 

MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Jennifer M. Narvaez, Associate 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.