Citation Nr: 21072586 Decision Date: 12/03/21 Archive Date: 12/03/21 DOCKET NO. 20-04 737 DATE: December 3, 2021 ORDER The issue of entitlement to service connection for right shoulder musculoskeletal condition (claimed as right shoulder injury) is dismissed. REMANDED Service connection for Parkinson's disease is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The appellant explicitly, unambiguously, and with a full understanding of the consequences, withdrew his appeal as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for right shoulder musculoskeletal condition (claimed as right shoulder injury). CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to service connection for right shoulder musculoskeletal condition (claimed as right shoulder injury) have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1994 to April 1999. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2017 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). By way of background, the Veteran originally appealed the RO's August 2017 rating decision addressing service connection for bilateral hearing loss, Parkinson's disease, a right shoulder injury, and tinnitus. Following the RO's January 2020 Statement of the Case (SOC), the Veteran perfected his appeal to the Board regarding only service connection for Parkinson's disease and a right shoulder injury. Accordingly, the Veteran was informed that his appeals pertaining to bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus were discontinued. See February 2020 correspondence. Thus, the Board will not address service connection for bilateral hearing loss or tinnitus, as they are not properly before the Board. In September 2021, the Board held a hearing addressing service connection for Parkinson's disease and a right shoulder injury, a transcript of which has been associated with the claims file and reviewed. Pending at the time of the hearing was the Veteran's Motion to Advance on the Docket, which the Board granted based on his history of homelessness. The Board has limited the discussion below to the relevant evidence required to support its finding of fact and conclusion of law, as well as to the specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the Veteran and those reasonably raised by the record. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552 (2008). 1. Entitlement to service connection for right shoulder musculoskeletal condition (claimed as right shoulder injury) is dismissed. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.55, 20.205. The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. In DeLisio v. Shinseki, the Court provided the requirements for a valid oral withdrawal of an appeal or an issue on appeal. The Court held a valid oral withdrawal must be: (1) explicit, (2) unambiguous, and (3) done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action by the appellant. Delisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011). During the September 2021 Board videoconference hearing, the appellant withdrew from appeal the issue of entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder musculoskeletal condition. He stated that he wanted to withdraw the appeal as to entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder musculoskeletal condition. He was advised of the consequences of the withdrawal request, and he confirmed he understood said consequences. The Board finds the appellant's withdrawal was explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences. Thus, the Veteran's withdrawal of this issue at the hearing meets the requirements of Delisio. Consequently, this issue is dismissed as there remains no allegation of error of fact or law for appellate consideration. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Service connection for Parkinson's disease is remanded. The Veteran contends his Parkinson's disease is related to service. The Board finds remand is necessary to afford the Veteran a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any Parkinson's disease. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159; see also McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). In particular, the Veteran's treatment records reference competent evidence of Parkinson's disease. The Veteran has contended that he was exposed to chemicals while retrieving batteries during service which caused his Parkinson's. The Veteran has offered multiple articles discussing a potential association between lead and Parkinson's disease in support. Of note, treatment records also reference the Veteran's mother and father both had Parkinson's disease with his father having early-onset. The Board acknowledges the February 2019 private provider's opinion of record; however, it is not supported by a rationale and failed to address the Veteran's entire medical history including his familial history of Parkinson's. As such, the evidence of record is insufficient to determine the nature and etiology of any Parkinson's disease and whether it is related to service, to include contended exposure to chemicals while retrieving batteries. Based on the aforementioned, the Board finds VA's duty to assist has been triggered, and the Veteran must be afforded a VA examination for his service connection claim for Parkinson's disease. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination before an appropriate examiner to determine the nature and etiology of any Parkinson's disease. The entire claims file and this remand should be made available for review. The examiner should render an opinion as to whether the Veteran has Parkinson's disease that is at least as likely as not related to service, to include contended exposure to chemicals while retrieving batteries. - The examiner is directed to address and consider the Veteran's lay statements regarding his contended in-service exposure to chemicals as well as the journal articles of record discussing possible associations between lead exposure and Parkinson's disease. - Attention is also directed to the Veteran's treatment records indicating the Veteran's mother and father had Parkinson's disease with his father also having early-onset Parkinson's. - The examiner is also asked to address and reconcile the March 2019 private opinion of record. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for any opinion expressed, based on the examiner's clinical and medical expertise; established medical principles; and references to the evidence of record, as appropriate. If any opinion cannot be expressed without resort to speculation, ensure that the examiner so indicates and discusses why an opinion is not possible, to include whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. 2. After the above development, and any other development deemed necessary, readjudicate the claims. SHEREEN M. MARCUS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A.C. Allen, Associate 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.