Citation Nr: 21065601 Decision Date: 10/26/21 Archive Date: 10/26/21 DOCKET NO. 17-51 526 DATE: October 26, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for dry mouth and loss of sense of taste is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a menstruation disorder, to include a hysterectomy is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 2002 to October 2008. In June 2020, the Board remanded the issues on appeal for further development, and the case has since been returned to the Board. The Board finds that the AOJ has not substantially complied with the remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for dry mouth and loss of sense of taste is remanded. In the June 2020 Board remand, the Board directed the AOJ to provide the Veteran with an examination and accompanying opinion as to whether is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's dry mouth and loss of sense of taste is caused OR aggravated by medications taken for her service-connected disorders. Specifically, the examiner was asked to consider the Veteran's lay statements of record. In response, an opinion was provided in October 2020. However, the examiner failed to provide an adequate rationale in addition to failing to address the Veteran's lay statements of records. Accordingly, a remand is required for an addendum clarification. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a menstruation disorder, to include a hysterectomy is remanded. In the June 2020 Board remand, the Board directed the AOJ to provide the Veteran with an examination and accompanying opinion as to whether is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's residuals of a menstruation disorder, to include a hysterectomy, are related to her active duty service. Specifically, the examiner was asked to consider the Veteran's lay statements of record. In response, an opinion was provided in October 2020. However, the examiner failed to provide an adequate rationale, failed to address the Veteran's lay statements of record and failed to comment on service treatment records showing a pelvic ultrasound for pain, as well as documentation of dysmenorrhea, premenstrual syndrome and the use of contraceptives. Accordingly, a remand is required for an addendum clarification. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from a qualified examiner. The examiner must review the claims file. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following (a.) Whether is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that the Veteran's dry mouth and loss of sense of taste is caused OR aggravated by medications taken for her service-connected disorders? In rendering an opinion, the examiner MUST consider the Veteran's lay statements of record. (b.) The examiner is reminded that a complete rationale should be provided for all opinions provided. If any requested opinion cannot be provided without resorting to speculation, court cases require the examiner to explain why the opinion cannot be offered, and state whether the inability is due to the absence of any evidence or is due to the limits of scientific or medical knowledge. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from a qualified examiner. The examiner must review the claims file. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following (a.) Whether is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that the Veteran's residuals of a menstruation disorder, to include a hysterectomy, are related to her active duty service? (b.) In rendering an opinion, the examiner MUST consider the Veteran's lay statements of record and MUST comment on service treatment records showing a pelvic ultrasound for pain, as well as documentation of dysmenorrhea, premenstrual syndrome and the use of contraceptives. The examiner is reminded that a complete rationale should be provided for all opinions provided. If any requested opinion cannot be provided without resorting to speculation, court cases require the examiner to explain why the opinion cannot be offered, and state whether the inability is due to the absence of any evidence or is due to the limits of scientific or medical knowledge. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R. A. Elliott II, 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.