Citation Nr: 21073871 Decision Date: 12/13/21 Archive Date: 12/13/21 DOCKET NO. 14-05 125 DATE: December 13, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and gastritis with peptic ulcer disease (PUD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1982 to April 1983 and from August 1983 to December 1997. In February 2021, a Board hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. In April 2021, the Board remanded the current claim for additional development. During the pendency of the appeal, in an August 2021 rating decision, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) granted service connection for sinusitis and bronchitis. These grants of service connection constitute a full award of the benefits sought on appeal with respect to those issues. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, those matters are no longer in appellate status. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for GERD and gastritis with PUD is remanded. In the April 2021 remand, the Board instructed the AOJ to obtain a VA examination to ascertain the current severity of the Veteran's service-connected GERD and gastritis with PUD. The examiner was specifically instructed to discuss the presence or absence of epigastric distress, dysphagia, pyrosis, regurgitation, substernal or arm or shoulder pain or other pain, vomiting, material weight loss, hematemesis or melena, and anemia and to state whether the combination of the Veteran's symptoms was productive of either severe impairment of health or considerable impairment of health. In an attempt to comply with the Board's remand directives, the AOJ scheduled the Veteran for a May 2021 VA examination. However, the May 2021 VA examiner failed to indicate whether the combination of the Veteran's symptoms caused severe impairment of health or considerable impairment of health. The Board also notes that, in light of the VA treatment records that reflect the Veteran had anemia/iron deficiency and decreased hemoglobin, the VA examiner should have discussed the presence or absence of the symptom of anemia but did not. As such, the May 2021 VA examination does not comply with the Board's remand instructions and remand is warranted for a new VA examination consistent with the directives herein. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain a VA examination from an appropriate examiner to determine the nature and severity of the Veteran's service-connected GERD and gastritis with PUD. The examiner must review pertinent documents in the Veteran's claims file in conjunction with the examination. All indicated studies should be completed. All findings must be fully reported. a) The examiner is instructed to discuss the presence (including frequency and severity) or absence of epigastric distress, dysphagia, pyrosis, regurgitation, substernal or arm or shoulder pain or other pain, vomiting, material weight loss, hematemesis or melena, and anemia. In addressing the question of anemia, the examiner must consider and discuss the Veteran's VA treatment records that reflect the presence of anemia/iron deficiency and decreased hemoglobin. b) The examiner must also state whether the combination of the applicable symptoms is productive of either severe impairment of health or considerable impairment of health. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms/history and that such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If his reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. (Continued on the next page) A rationale for all requested opinions shall be provided. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Metzner, Paul 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.