Citation Nr: 21076712 Decision Date: 12/27/21 Archive Date: 12/27/21 DOCKET NO. 17-23 906 DATE: December 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a kidney disability, claimed as due to herbicide exposure is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability, claimed as due to herbicide exposure is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the United States Army from August 1967 to April 1969, including service in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) during the Vietnam era. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) July 2014 rating decision of the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In January 2020 the Veteran appeared before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Board hearing. A transcript of that hearing has been reviewed by the Board, and has been associated with the claims file. Most recently the Board remanded the Veteran's claims in July 2021, specifically directing the AOJ to obtain addendum medical opinions regarding the claimed disabilities. A Board remand confers upon the appellant the right to compliance with that order. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Substantial compliance, rather than strict compliance, is required. D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008). The Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with the July 2021 remand directives. However, in November 2021, the Veteran, through his representative, raised the fact that he has been "provided outside care through the VA," and that "those records are not in the Veteran's file," and therefore a further remand is necessary to allow the Veteran to develop his claim. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a kidney disability, claimed as due to herbicide exposure is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability, claimed as due to herbicide exposure is remanded. The Veteran claims that his kidney and heard disabilities are caused by, or otherwise due to, exposure to herbicide agents while on active duty. As noted above, in November 2021 the Veteran alleged that he has received care from non-VA clinicians, and that those records are not in his claims file. Also in his November 2021 Appellate Brief, the Veteran argued that "multiple respected medical journals and sites" support his claims. However, the Veteran failed to provide copies of the information he has used to support his claim. As neither the Veteran nor his representative are medical professionals, they are unable to opine on the etiology of his conditions as they are complex medical determinations. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Veteran is reminded that the duty to assist is a two-way street, and that he has a responsibility to assist the VA in developing his claims. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Therefore, upon remand, the Veteran is directed to provide the names and addresses of his non-VA treatment providers, either his treatment records or the necessary medical release forms allowing the AOJ to obtain them, as well as the list of the "respected medical journals and sites" he referenced in his November 2021 argument. This will allow VA to properly adjudicate his claims. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the Veteran with the necessary information to obtain his non-VA medical records, to include a list of all his non-VA treatment providers. If the Veteran wishes that the AOJ obtain such records, he should provide the necessary medical release forms. All documentation sent and received by the AOJ must be associated with the claims file. 2. Request that the Veteran (and/or his representative) submit all medical evidence, to include but not limited to medical journal articles and/or websites, reference in the November 2021 post-remand brief. 3. Once the above is completed, if necessary, obtain addendum medical opinions, from qualified medical professionals, regarding the etiology of his claimed conditions. The examiner[s] shall provide the following opinions: (a.) Whether it is as least as likely as not (approximately 50 percent chance or greater) that the Veteran's kidney disability to include benign renal cysts was incurred in service, or is a result of his in-service exposure to herbicide agents. The examiner must provide a detailed rationale for their opinion. They must specifically address relevant information in the Veteran's non-VA medical records, as well as any new medical evidence submitted by the Veteran. If the examiner cannot provide the required opinions without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner must explain why that is the case. If the examiner determines that the required medical opinion cannot be rendered without an in-person examination of the Veteran, the AOJ shall schedule the necessary examination. (b.) Whether it is as least as likely as not (approximately 50 percent chance or greater) that the Veteran's heart disability was incurred in service, or is a result of his in-service exposure to herbicide agents. The examiner must provide a detailed rationale for their opinion. They must specifically address relevant information in the Veteran's non-VA medical records, as well as any new medical evidence submitted by the Veteran. If the examiner cannot provide the required opinions without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner must explain why that is the case. If the examiner determines that the required medical opinion cannot be rendered without an in-person examination of the Veteran, the AOJ shall schedule the necessary examination. S. L. Kennedy Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Neville, 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.