Citation Nr: 21074686 Decision Date: 12/16/21 Archive Date: 12/16/21 DOCKET NO. 16-10 162 DATE: December 16, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory condition, including as due to in-service chemical or asbestos exposure is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1966 to January 1968. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2019, a hearing was held before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The case was previously before the Board in March 2019, January 2020, and January 2021 when it was remanded for further development. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory condition, including as due to in-service chemical or asbestos exposure Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board's previous January 2021 remand directives regarding the issue of service connection for a respiratory condition. Another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The January 2021 remand directed that a medical opinion be obtained which addressed the Veteran's respiratory diagnoses, and whether it is at least as likely as not that each respiratory condition was related to the Veteran's service, to include in-service asbestos exposure and exposure to solvents and brake dust and other various chemicals from his duties as a vehicle mechanic. The examiner was directed to consider that the Veteran's reports of exposure to other solvents and brake dust while completing his duties is consistent with the nature of his job as a vehicle mechanic, and therefore there is evidence that he had exposure to various chemicals. A medical opinion was obtained in December 2020. However, the Board finds this opinion to be inadequate. The opinion indicated that while June 2015 treatment records note diagnoses of COPD, asthma, and asthmatic bronchitis, service treatment records were silent for ongoing acute or chronic treatment of a respiratory condition and that treatment records did not reveal continuous ongoing medical treatment or aggravation of an acute or chronic respiratory asbestos exposure condition at discharge to present day. Therefore, it was less likely than not related to service, including asbestos exposure and exposure to solvents and brake dust and other various chemicals from his duties as a vehicle mechanic. The opining clinician's rationale indicates that a respiratory condition, including as due to asbestos exposure and exposure to solvents and brake dust and other various chemicals was not related to service because there was no continuous complaints or treatment in service and since service. However, the clinician failed to clearly provide a rationale regarding whether the Veteran's respiratory diagnoses were directly related to his in-service exposure to asbestos and exposure to solvents and brake dust and other various chemicals. Where, as here, VA undertakes to obtain an opinion when developing a claim, even if not statutorily obligated to do so, it must provide an adequate one. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007); see also Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185, 191 (1995) (emphasizing the Board's duty to return an inadequate examination report "if further evidence or clarification of the evidence...is essential for a proper appellate decision"). Accordingly, a remand is required to obtain an opinion addressing whether the Veteran's respiratory conditions are directly related to his in-service exposure to asbestos and exposure to solvents and brake dust and other various chemicals. Additionally, all updated VA treatment records must be obtained and associated with the claims file. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain the Veteran's VA treatment records for the period from February 2021 to the present. 2. Then, return the claims file to the clinician who provided the December 2020 VA medical opinion regarding the Veteran's respiratory condition. The clinician must review the entire claims file, including a copy of this Remand. If that VA examiner is not available, then forward the Veteran's claims file to an appropriate VA clinician to obtain the requested addendum medical opinion. Following a review of the Veteran's claims file, the clinician must provide an opinion as to the following: With regard to each diagnosed respiratory condition, to include asthmatic bronchitis, asthma, and COPD, is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that each respiratory condition, is related to in-service asbestos exposure and exposure to solvents and brake dust and other various chemicals from his duties as a vehicle mechanic. The clinician must consider that the Veteran's reports of exposure to other solvents and brake dust while completing his duties is consistent with the nature of his job as a vehicle mechanic, and therefore there is evidence that he had exposure to various chemicals. ** The clinician must discuss any connection between each of the Veteran's diagnosed respiratory conditions, to include asthmatic bronchitis, asthma and COPD and his in-service exposure to asbestos and exposure to solvents and brake dust and other various chemicals from his duties as a vehicle mechanic. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. If the clinician cannot provide a requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the clinician must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. The clinician must indicate whether there was any further need for information or testing necessary to make a determination. Additionally, the clinician must indicate whether any opinion could not be rendered due to limitations of knowledge in the medical community at large and not those of the particular examiner. M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Bonnie Yoon, 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.