Citation Nr: 21068641 Decision Date: 11/12/21 Archive Date: 11/12/21 DOCKET NO. 14-01 829 DATE: November 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1974 to August 1975. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2011 rating decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board denied the Veteran's claims in a September 2019 decision. The Veteran then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veteran's Claims (Court), and in a May 2020 Memorandum decision the Court vacated the September 2019 Board decision with regard to the hypertension claim, and returned the case to the Board for action consistent with the memorandum decision. Hypertension When VA undertakes to provide an examination or opinion, it must be an adequate one. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). When there is not substantial compliance with Board remand requests, the Board errs as a matter of law when it does not ensure compliance. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). In response to the prior October 2017 Board remand, the Veteran was provided with a May 2019 VA Heart Conditions examination to address the etiology of his claimed hypertension disability. However, the Board finds this examination to be inadequate for adjudication purposes. Specifically, the Board notes that the May 2019 examiner indicated that the Veteran would be better served by a hypertension examination. This notation calls into question both the adequacy of the examination to assess the etiology of the Veteran's hypertension and the qualifications/expertise of the examiner to address the Veteran's hypertension. Further, the examiner's opinion that there was "no objective evidence" that the Veteran's hypertension was "a service-related issue" lacks a reasoned medical explanation and is just an unexplained conclusory opinion. For the reasons indicated above, the Board finds it prudent to provide the Veteran with an additional examination and medical opinion in order to determine whether his currently diagnosed hypertension disability is etiologically related to his active-duty service. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Afford the Veteran a VA hypertension examination by an examiner who has yet to examine the Veteran, with sufficient expertise to address the etiology of the Veteran's claimed hypertension disability. All pertinent evidence of record must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. Following a review of the relevant records and lay statements, the examiner should state whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's hypertension originated during his period of active service or are otherwise etiologically related to his active service. In proffering this opinion, the examiner must specifically comment on whether the Veteran's report of the onset and continuity of his hypertension symptoms and the treatment provided for such. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all proffered opinions. In this regard, the examiner must discuss and consider the Veteran's competent lay statements. If an examiner cannot provide the required opinions without resorting to speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why that is the case. Further, the examiner must state whether the inability to provide the required opinions is based on a personal limitation or on a lack of knowledge among the medical community at large. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Gresham 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.