Citation Nr: 21069999 Decision Date: 11/22/21 Archive Date: 11/22/21 DOCKET NO. 16-32 593 DATE: November 22, 2021¬ REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from September 1967 to August 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran died in June 2015. The Appellant, the surviving spouse, has been determined to be an appropriate substitute and proper appellant in this case. The Board remanded the issue for further development in April 2020. The claims have been returned to the Board for appellate review. Entitlement to service connection for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is remanded. The Appellant contends that the Veteran had RCC which was incurred in or related to service, or which was proximately caused by herbicide exposure, or which was proximately caused by the Veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus. Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board's previous remand directive. Another remand is required for two reasons. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The claim file does not contain VA treatment records from July 2012 through the Veteran's demise in June 2015, to include records related to the diagnosis, treatment, and demise of the Veteran even though the September 2015 rating decision indicates that they have been associated with the claims file. Thus, the Board finds that the AOJ's failure to obtain complete VA treatment records prior to June 2015 was a duty to assist error. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (c)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(3). Remand is therefore required to obtain complete VA treatment records prior to June 2015. Second, the June 2020 examiner was directed to consider the Veteran's self-report of previous kidney disease in the service treatment record (STR) but indicated that there was no such report. This is incorrect. Thus, the Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance with the Board's previous remand directive. Remand is therefore required to obtain a medical opinion that properly considers the Veteran's lay statement. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's complete VA treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from the June 2020 examiner, if possible, or from another competent medical examiner. Following a complete review of the evidence of record, the examiner should address the following questions: Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's renal cell cancer: (a.) was incurred in or otherwise related to service, to include exposure to herbicide agents in service? Please note that exposure to herbicide agents is conceded. (b.) was proximately due to the Veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus? When answering this question, the examiner must address the June 2015 article submitted by the appellant addressing the relationship between diabetes mellitus and the etiology of renal cell cancer. (c.) was aggravated (worsened beyond natural progression) by his service-connected diabetes mellitus? When answering this question, the examiner must address June 2015 the article submitted by the appellant. When answering these questions, the examiner must consider and address the in-service notation of the Veteran's self-reported kidney disease. The self-report can be found in the medical STR on a form titled X-Ray Container and Dental Patient History, question 6(h); dated March 19, 1968; and signed by the Veteran. A complete rationale is required for all opinions expressed. If the examiner is unable to render an opinion without resorting to speculation, a full rationale must be provided for that conclusion. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Mookim, Hope P. 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.