Citation Nr: 21064770
Decision Date: 10/21/21	Archive Date: 10/21/21

DOCKET NO. 16-19 085A
DATE: October 21, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for a cerebrovascular accident is remanded.

Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from September 1967 to August 1969.  This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a July 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In May 2020, the Board issued a decision that denied entitlement to service connection for a cerebrovascular accident and entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU).  The Veteran appealed the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).  In an April 2021 Order, pursuant to a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) filed by the parties, the Court vacated and remanded the May 2020 decision for compliance with the instructions in the JMPR.

This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c).

1. Entitlement to service connection for a cerebrovascular accident is remanded.

2. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded.

In February 2020, a VA examiner opined that the Veteran's cerebrovascular accident was less likely than not caused by service as service treatment records were silent for the Veteran experiencing a cerebrovascular accident during service and the Veteran denied events compatible with a cerebrovascular accident during active service.  However, the examiner indicated that the Veteran was being managed for hypertension at the time of his cerebrovascular accident, and it could be related to his history of hypertension.

The parties to the JMPR determined the Board failed to provide an adequate explanation when it found that entitlement to service connection for a cerebrovascular accident was not warranted.  Specifically, the parties noted that the Veteran's blood pressure at separation from active service was found to be elevated at 130/90.  As such, the parties determined that in relying on a February 2020 VA examiner's opinion, the Board failed to address whether the Veteran's post-service cerebrovascular accident was related to his in-service elevated blood pressure.  In light of the JMPR, the Board finds that an additional opinion is needed.

Finally, the parties determined that the Veteran's claim for TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the claim for service connection for a cerebrovascular accident.  As such, it is remanded for contemporaneous adjudication. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (holding that two issues are inextricably intertwined when they are so closely tied together that a final decision on one issue cannot be rendered until a decision on the other issues has been rendered).

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain an addendum medical opinion addressing        the claim for service connection for cerebrovascular accident.  If an examination is deemed necessary to respond to the question presented, one should be scheduled.

After review of the claims file, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely    as not (50 percent probability or greater) the Veteran's cerebrovascular accident is related to service. The examiner should explain why or why not, to include explaining whether the cerebrovascular accident is etiologically related to the elevated blood pressure reading on the separation examination, in light of          the February 2020 VA examiner's opinion that his cerebrovascular accident could be related to his      history of hypertension.

2. If the claim remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case.

 

 

K. A. BANFIELD

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. Lance, 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.