Citation Nr: 21005919 Decision Date: 02/02/21 Archive Date: 02/02/21 DOCKET NO. 16-45 324 DATE: February 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service-connection for hepatitis C is remanded. Entitlement to service-connection for diabetes mellitus is remanded. Entitlement to service-connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to service-connection for herpes is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran was a member of the United States Army Reserve from 1982 to 2003, to include periods of service from February 1982 to June 1982, and January 1991 to March 1991. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New Orleans, Louisiana. This case was previously remanded by the Board in November 2018 and December 2019. The Board regrets the additional delay associated with this remand; however, it is necessary to ensure that the Veteran receives all consideration due under the law. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) last adjudicated this appeal in a December 2019 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). Since that time, additional VA examination reports have been added to the claim file. In a September 2020 letter, the Board advised the Veteran of his right to have the AOJ review the additional evidence associated with the file since the December 2019 SSOC and informed him that he could choose to waive that right. The letter advised the Veteran that he had 45 days to respond and submit a waiver and also advised that, if he did not respond by the end of the 45-day period, the Board would remand the appeal to the AOJ for review. Because the Veteran did not submit a waiver or otherwise respond within 45 days of the September 2020 letter, the Board must remand this case to the RO for consideration of the additional evidence received. Furthermore, upon review of the new medical evidence, the Board finds that some of the medical opinions are inadequate. In this regard, the December 2019 Board remand stated that “the examiners must discuss and consider the Veteran’s competent lay statements.” However, the medical opinions for hepatitis, herpes, and diabetes did not mention the Veteran’s lay statements at all. These opinions also note that they were unable to find evidence in the claims file documenting a diagnosis during active duty and appear to be unaware that the Veteran’s service treatment records are missing. Additionally, the prior Board remand also noted that the treatment records show a diagnosis and treatment of herpes from 1984, hepatitis C from 2003, and diabetes from 2000. These dates differ from those listed in the examinations. Specifically, the opinions indicated that the first evidence of herpes, hepatitis C, and diabetes come from 2008. As a result, new opinions must be requested in order to avoid a future remand. Accordingly, the Board must remand the appeal to AOJ to consider the new medical evidence of record, address the discrepancies in such medical evidence, and for issuance a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from the March 2019 examiner or other appropriate clinician regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s claimed herpes, diabetes mellitus, and hepatitis C disabilities. All pertinent evidence of record must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. Following a review of the relevant records and lay statements, the examiner(s) should state whether the Veteran’s disabilities are at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater): originated during his period of active service or otherwise etiologically related to his active service. The examiners must provide a complete rationale for all proffered opinions. In this regard, the examiners must discuss and consider the Veteran’s competent lay statements. The examiner should be aware that the Veteran’s service treatments records have been lost and that the November 2019 Board remand notes that the treatment records show a diagnosis and treatment of herpes from 1984, hepatitis C from 2003, and diabetes from 2000. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, and injuries, and that his reports must be considered in formulating the requested opinion. However, if there is a medical reason to doubt its veracity, the examiner should explain why the Veteran's statements or recollection are inconsistent with the evidence in this case, medical principles relating to the onset and progress of the disease, the specific findings in the record, and/or your professional judgment. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If an examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed 2. After undertaking any additional development deemed appropriate and giving the Veteran full opportunity to supplement the record, adjudicate the Veteran’s pending claims in light of any additional evidence added to the record following the December 2019 SSOC. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be afforded the applicable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Quinn, 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.