Citation Nr: 21070398 Decision Date: 11/23/21 Archive Date: 11/23/21 DOCKET NO. 14-23 160 DATE: November 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from November 1984 to January 1986, from August 1990 to September 1990, and from April 2002 to July 2002. By way of procedural history, the Board notes that this claim was previously before the Board in August 2020 when the Veteran's claim regarding service connection for GERD was denied. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a June 2021 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), the Court vacated and remanded the Board's decision. As such, this claim is again before the Board. 1. Entitlement to service connection for GERD is remanded. In the June 2021 JMR, the parties agreed that the May 2020 VA examination and opinion upon which the pervious Board denial relied on was inadequate. As such, the parties determined that a remand was required for the VA to acquire an adequate opinion speaking to the nature and etiology of the Veteran's claimed GERD. Specifically, the parties pointed out in its JMR that the May 2020 VA examination and opinion was logically inconsistent in its rationale in rejecting an etiological nexus. To this end, the May 2020 VA examiner, opined, in part, that as the Veteran experienced GERD symptoms outside of incidents of air sickness during his active service, that such conditions could not be etiologically connected. The JMR found that such rationale to be a logical fallacy, and that just because the Veteran was noted to have GERD symptoms in excess of his air sickness does not automatically preclude the possibility of one causing the other. Therefore, as such rationale is considered inadequate, another VA examination and opinion has been ordered upon remand. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). (When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should contact the Veteran and his representative and request their assistance in identifying any outstanding relevant records. The AOJ should make reasonable attempts to obtain all identified outstanding records and associate them with the Veteran's claims file. 2. After associating all outstanding records with the Veteran's claims file, the AOJ should afford the Veteran an examination with an appropriate examiner of the Veteran's claimed GERD. The AOJ should provide the examiner with a complete copy of the claims file to include this remand order. The AOJ should ensure that the examiner follows these directives: (a) The VA examiner should identify all current disabilities associated with the Veteran's stomach and esophagus. (b) For each current disability identified, the examiner should opine whether the disability was at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) caused by the Veteran's military service to include reports of airsickness in the Veteran's service treatment records. The examiner should explain why or why not. In this regard, if the examiner finds in the negative against an etiological nexus to airsickness, the examiner must provide explicit rationale as to why such nexus cannot be drawn; it is not sufficient to find that symptoms of the stomach/esophagus were found outside incidents of airsickness, without further rationale. (c) For each current disability identified, the examiner should opine whether the disability was at least as likely as not permanently worsened beyond normal progression (aggravated) by the Veteran's service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder. If the examiner is unable to provide an opinion on these matters, the examiner must state whether the inability to render an opinion is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Ziheng Zhu, 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.