Citation Nr: 21070846 Decision Date: 11/26/21 Archive Date: 11/26/21 DOCKET NO. 15-00 404 DATE: November 26, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder, to include gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), peptic ulcers, acid reflux and Helicobacter Pylori (H. Pylori) infection is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the United States Navy from March 2001 to March 2003. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions issued in September 2013 and June 2014 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina. These matters were previously before the Board in June 2018 and November 2019. In the November 2019 decision, the Board denied the claims. The Veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a March 2021 Memorandum Decision, the Court found that the Board erred in relying on a May 2019 VA examination which addressed the etiology of Veteran's gastrointestinal disability, and when it failed to consider entitlement to TDIU on an extraschedular basis. The Court set aside the November 2019 decision and remanded the claims to the Board. In the Memorandum Decision, the Court explained that it was unclear from the May 2019 examination report that the examiner sufficiently considered the Veteran's lay statements concerning the onset and progression of his gastrointestinal symptoms. Thus, the Board erred in relying on this opinion when denying the claim. The Board was instructed, on remand, to either explain how it is able to rely on the inadequate opinion, or to obtain an adequate one. The Board has reviewed the May 2019 examination report and chooses the latter. As for TDIU, the Court explained that the Board erred when it denied entitlement to TDIU based on schedular criteria, without considering or discussing whether the Veteran would be entitled to TDIU on an extraschedular basis. Because a decision on the Veteran's gastrointestinal disability claim would have a direct effect on whether or not the Veteran meets the schedular criteria for TDIU, the Board finds that the issues are inextricably intertwined and the TDIU claim must be remanded as well. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (two issues are inextricably intertwined when they are so closely tied together that a final Board decision cannot be rendered unless both are adjudicated). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his gastrointestinal disorders, to include gastroesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcers, acid reflux and Helicobacter Pylori infection. After reviewing the claims file and examining the Veteran, the examiner is asked to identify all current gastrointestinal disorders or any disorders that have existed during the appeal period. Then, for each such disorder, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (that is, a 50 percent or greater probability) that began in, or is otherwise related to, the Veteran's military service. In offering such opinions, the examiner must consider and discuss the lay statements of record regarding the onset of the Veteran's gastrointestinal disorder and the continuity of symptomatology of such disorder, to specifically include his statements that he first experienced gastrointestinal symptoms while in service, and that they have been present, and worsening, ever since. The examiner is advised that a lack of post-service treatment records demonstrating a continuity of care cannot form the sole basis of a negative opinion. Thus, if the examiner rejects the Veteran's lay statements as to onset and/or a continuity of symptomatology, he or she should provide a reason for doing so beyond the mere lack of corroborating records. A rationale for any opinion offered should be provided. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Jeremy J. Olsen, 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.