Citation Nr: 21076570 Decision Date: 12/27/21 Archive Date: 12/27/21 DOCKET NO. 12-01 223 DATE: December 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for colon cancer is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for atrial fibrillation is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for congestive heart failure is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for skin lesions is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for basal cell carcinoma is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for cysts is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active duty service from August 1952 to August 1978. Unfortunately, the Veteran died in October 2013. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2010 rating decision of a Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) Regional Office, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). Following the Veteran's death, the appellant was accepted as a substitute claimant by the AOJ. See VA Memorandum dated May 16, 2018. Thus, the appellant now stands in the shoes of the Veteran for purposes of adjudicating the claims to completion. See 38 U.S.C. § 5121A(a). In his January 2012 appeal to the Board, the Veteran requested a videoconference hearing. However, for reasons not clearly reflected in the record the appeal was not certified to the Board until April 2020. The Board scheduled a hearing for the appellant in November 2021, providing written notification of the date, time, and location of the hearing, and advised her that because of the COVID-19 pandemic she could elect to have a virtual Board hearing. See Board Correspondence dated September 29, 2021. In November 2021, the appellant elected to have a virtual hearing, then notified the Board that she no longer wished to have a hearing at all. Thus, the hearing request is deemed withdrawn. Appeals to the Board, normally considered in docket order, may be advanced on the docket upon a showing of good cause. 38 U.S.C. § 7107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.902 (2020). As the record reflects the appellant's advanced age, the Board, on its own motion, grants advancement on the docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c)(1). Discussion Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the appellant's claims so that she is afforded every possible consideration. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (2020). VA is obligated to provide an examination and obtain a medical opinion in an initial claim of service connection when the record contains competent evidence that the claimant has a current disability or signs and symptoms of a current disability, the record indicates that the disability or signs and symptoms of disability may be associated with active service, and the record does not contain sufficient information to make a decision on the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81-83 (2006). Here, the Veteran's post-service treatment records appear to reflect diagnoses or signs and symptoms of colon cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, skin lesions, basal cell carcinoma, and cysts (or residuals thereof) prior to the Veteran's death. Additionally, the Veteran's service treatment records reflect weight gain, hypertension, erythematous skin, and multiple cysts, which give rise to a possible nexus for each of the claimed disorders. Thus, resolving any doubt in the appellant's favor, the Board observes that the record contains competent evidence that the claimed disabilities may by associated with the Veteran's active service, and that the record does not contain sufficient information to make a decision on the claims. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); McLendon, supra; see Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171, 175 (1991) (finding that the Board may consider only independent medical evidence to support its findings and may not substitute its own unsubstantiated medical conclusions). Accordingly, the claims are remanded to obtain VA medical opinions addressing the likely etiology of the late Veteran's claimed disabilities. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Ensure that all outstanding VA treatment records for the late Veteran, if any, are associated with the claims file. 2. Then, request VA opinions from appropriately qualified examiners as to the nature and etiology of the Veteran's colon cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, skin lesions, basal cell carcinoma, and cysts. The claims file, and a copy of this Remand, must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. After a complete review of the claims file, the examiner is asked to provide opinions with complete rationale addressing the following: (a) Identify all currently diagnosed colon cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, skin lesions, basal cell carcinoma, and cysts at any point from the commencement of the claim period in August 2009 until the Veteran's death in October 2013. (b) Provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or higher probability) that the currently diagnosed colon cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, skin lesions, basal cell carcinoma, and cysts onset during service, manifested within one year after service separation, or is otherwise etiologically related to service. Although the examiner must review the entire claims file, attention is called to the Veteran's service treatment records reflecting weight gain, heart evaluations, hypertension, erythematous skin, and multiple cysts during service. *The Board's reference to evidence in this context should not be construed as a determination of its credibility. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all opinions provided. 3. Thereafter, ensure that the examiner has substantially responded to the questions posed by the Board, and if not, take corrective action. 4. Then, readjudicate the remanded claims. L. CHU Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Farrell, 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.