Citation Nr: 21071976
Decision Date: 12/01/21	Archive Date: 12/01/21

DOCKET NO. 17-59 378
DATE: December 1, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for asthma is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1, 1967 to October 4, 1967.  This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2016 rating decision.

The issue on appeal was remanded by the Board in November 2019 for further development, to specifically include obtaining a VA medical opinion addressing the etiology of the Veteran's asthma.  In this remand, the Board asked the examiner to specifically consider and address all pertinent service treatment records (as outlined in the remand), as well as the Veteran's lay statement that his asthma was not problematic before service (at induction, he reported no asthma attacks since the age of 12), but that it increased in severity during service, and has continued to worsen ever since.

In a January 2020 opinion, a VA examiner determined that the claimed condition, which clearly and unmistakably existed prior to service, was clearly and unmistakably not aggravated beyond its natural progression by an in-service injury, event, or illness.  The examiner noted that the Veteran had clear and unmistakable evidence of the preexisting asthma.  The examiner found that there is evidence to indicate that the Veteran continued to suffer from the disorder during service, which is typical of the condition.  The Veteran notes being exposed to dusty housing conditions at Ft. Bragg.  Asthma is a chronic condition that waxes and wanes based upon presence of allergen or precipitating event.  The Veteran's private physician noted that the Veteran had "symptoms more or less all his life."  The progression is not beyond normal progression for this disorder.  No evidence of permanent aggravation beyond normal progression was identified. 

The Board finds this opinion is inadequate.  While the examiner noted that there is evidence to indicate that the Veteran continued to suffer from the disorder during service, which is typical of the condition, the examiner did not address the Veteran's assertion that his asthma was not problematic before service (at induction, he reported no asthma attacks since the age of 12).  See notice of disagreement (NOD), June 2017; Report of Medical History, June 1967.  As such, the Board finds that an addendum opinion must be obtained on this matter which addresses the Veteran's assertion, as requested in the November 2019 remand. 

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

Return the claims file to the VA examiner who provided the January 2020 VA opinion so that an addendum opinion may be obtained.  If the same examiner is not available, an opinion can be provided by another VA examiner.  Upon review of the claims file, the examiner should respond to the following:

(a) Is it clear and unmistakable (i.e., obvious, manifest, and undebatable) that the Veteran's preexisting asthma WAS NOT aggravated (i.e., permanently increased in severity) during active duty service?

(b) Or, is it clear and unmistakable that any increase in service was due to the natural progress of the disability?

In formulating the above opinion, the examiner is asked to specifically consider and address all pertinent service treatment records outlined in the November 2019 Board remand, as well as the Veteran's June 2017 lay statement that his asthma was not problematic before service (at induction, he reported no asthma attacks since the age of 12), but that it increased in severity during service, and has continued to worsen ever since.  

The examiner should provide a complete rationale for any opinions provided.  If additional examination is needed to render the above-requested opinions, such should be provided.

 

 

MICHELLE L. KANE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	L. Durham, 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.