Citation Nr: 21006837 Decision Date: 02/05/21 Archive Date: 02/05/21 DOCKET NO. 16-39 483 DATE: February 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to service-connected disabilities, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from March 1964 to March 1966, including service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2014 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2017, the Board issued a decision which, in pertinent part, denied the Veteran’s claim seeking service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II. The Veteran appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In August 2018, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand, which set aside this portion of the October 2017 Board decision and remanded the matter for further adjudication consistent with the Joint Motion. The Board notes the issue of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include as secondary to the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities, has been perfected and was most recently remanded by the Board in December 2020. This issue has not, however, been re-certified back to the Board and is not yet ripe for Board review. This issue will be the subject of a later Board decision as appropriate. 1. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to service-connected disabilities, is remanded. Pursuant to the Court’s August 2018 Order, the RO must obtain a new translation of the October 10, 2013, letter from M. Mateo Lopez, M.D. Specifically, the Academy of Languages translation of this letter, received October 16, 2017, noted that it merely showed a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. However, the RO’s February 2014 deferred rating decision noted that Dr. Lopez’s letter included an opinion that the Veteran’s hypertension was related to his service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II. Thus, a new translation is required. The Court’s August 2018 Order also noted that the September 2014 VA examiner’s etiology opinion concerning the Veteran’s hypertension was based on an inaccurate factual premise. Specifically, the VA examiner noted that the Veteran was first diagnosed with hypertension in June 2005. This does not consider, however, the evidence of record indicating that the Veteran’s hypertension was first diagnosed in 1999. Thus, a new medical opinion is required to address the etiology of the Veteran’s current hypertension. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain a new translation of the October 10, 2013, letter from M. Mateo Lopez, M.D. Once received, this translation should be compared to the February 2015 deferred rating decision’s interpretation of this letter with any discrepancies explained. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his hypertension. The examiner must review the claims file. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s hypertension (1) began during active service, (2) manifested within one year after discharge from service, or (3) was noted during service with continuity of the same symptomatology since service? Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s hypertension is related to, proximately due to, or aggravated, i.e., worsened beyond its natural progression, by his service-connected disabilities? Provide a rationale to support these opinions. In doing so, the VA examiner must consider the January 2007 VA examinations for hypertension and for diabetes mellitus, and the January 2011 VA examination for diabetes mellitus, all of which noted histories of hypertension beginning in 1999. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board W. Yates, 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.