Citation Nr: 21006930 Decision Date: 02/08/21 Archive Date: 02/08/21 DOCKET NO. 17-67 533 DATE: February 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for cardiovascular disease, to include hypertension, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1964 to December 1967 and from January 1976 to September 1978. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from December 2014 and April 2017 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. In June 2019, the case came before the Board. The Board found that new and material evidence was not submitted to reopen the claim for entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder. In addition, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for a headache disorder and a cardiovascular disorder. Lastly, the Board remanded the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for a bladder disorder as secondary to the service-connected disability of hysterectomy in order for the Veteran to attend an additional examination. Following the Board’s decision, the Veteran appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In August 2019, the Secretary of VA and a representative of the Veteran filed a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR). Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran did not challenge the portion of the Board’s decision that denied entitlement to service connection for a headache disorder or the Board’s finding that new and material evidence was not submitted to reopen the claim for entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder. In addition, the Board notes that the portion of the Board’s decision to remand the Veteran’s claim for a bladder disorder was not before the Court. Lastly, as to the claim for entitlement to service connection for a cardiovascular disability to include hypertension, the parties agreed that the Board erred when it did not address whether a VA medical opinion was required with respect to the etiology of the Veteran’s hypertension in order to ensure satisfaction of VA’s duty to assist. In September 2019, the RO issued a rating decision that awarded entitlement to service connection for a bladder disorder. Thus, this issue is no longer before the Board. Entitlement to service connection for cardiovascular disease, to include hypertension, is remanded. In the August 2019 JMPR, the parties agreed that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons and bases when it failed to address whether a VA medical opinion was necessary to address the November 1967 Blood Pressure reading of 140/88. As a result of the JMPR, the Board finds that additional development is necessary, and that a remand is required in order to obtain a VA medical opinion prior to the Board’s further consideration of the claim on appeal. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Assign an appropriate VA examiner to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s cardiovascular disorder. If the examiner feels that an in-person examination is required, then an examination should be scheduled. The electronic claims file must be reviewed by the examiner. After a review of the claims file, the examiner should provide answers to the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s cardiovascular disorder, to include hypertension, had its onset in service or is caused by or related at least in part to her active service? The examiner’s report must specifically address the November 30, 1967 blood pressure reading of 140/88 that was recorded at the Veteran’s separation examination. In providing all of the requested opinions, the examiner should consider the Veteran’s competent lay claims regarding the observable symptoms she has experienced. The VA examination report must include a complete rationale for all opinions expressed. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Rescan, 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.