Citation Nr: 21076874
Decision Date: 12/28/21	Archive Date: 12/28/21

DOCKET NO. 14-42 487
DATE: December 28, 2021

REMANDED

Service connection for hypertension. 

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in June 2018. In November 2020, the Board denied the claim. The Veteran appealed to the Veterans Claims Court. In August 2021, the Court Clerk granted a Joint Motion to Vacate and remanded the claim to the Board for additional consideration. 

Specifically, the Court found that a clarification medical opinion was needed to determine whether hypertension was incurred in service, to include as a result of exposure to Agent Orange (AO) and to determine whether there was an increase in the severity of hypertension due to the service-connected heart disease. Therefore, a medical opinion is needed.

The matter is REMANDED for the following actions:

1. Direct the claims file to a clinician to provide opinions as to the following:

	whether hypertension was at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) incurred in service, to include as a result of AO exposure.

	The clinician is asked to specifically address whether there exists a "direct causation" relationship between herbicide exposure and hypertension (but not based on the absence of a presumptive relationship).

	whether there was an "increase in severity of hypertension that is due to or the result of service connected heart disease and not due to the natural progress of the heart disease." 

	The clinician is asked not to use the language of whether hypertension was "permanently worsened" by heart disease.

A rationale for all opinions must be rendered. 

2. If the clinician determines that an examination is necessary in order to provide the requested opinions, then one should be scheduled.

 

 

L. HOWELL

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	D. Ragofsky, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.