Citation Nr: 21009828 Decision Date: 02/23/21 Archive Date: 02/23/21 DOCKET NO. 17-53 365 DATE: February 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for chronic sinusitis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the U.S. Navy from August 1965 to January 1969. In November 2019, the Board denied the Veteran’s service connection claim for chronic sinusitis. The Veteran appealed the November 2019 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In September 2020, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) to vacate and remand the November 2019 denial of service connection for chronic sinusitis. The appeal was returned to the Board for action consistent with the September 2020 JMPR. 1. Entitlement to service connection for chronic sinusitis is remanded. The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for chronic sinusitis. He contends that his chronic infection of the nasal-pharyngeal area in service are the same infections that continue to this day. See June 2017 Notice of Disagreement (NOD). At the outset, the Board notes that the Veteran has a diagnosis of sinusitis. See December 2016 VA examination. The Board also notes that the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) indicate complaints of nasal issues. For instance, the Veteran was noted to have issues with his pharynx in February 1968. The Veteran was also noted to have a postnasal drip in November 1968. In a December 2016 opinion and a May 2017 clarifying addendum opinion, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s chronic sinusitis is not at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including the Veteran’s treatment for viral infection, pharyngitis, pneumonia, and sinusitis while in service. The examiner concluded there is no medical nexus establishing causality between the Veteran’s sinusitis and his military service. No residual or chronic disability subject to service connection is shown by service treatment records or demonstrated by evidence post-service. The Board finds the December 2016 VA opinion and May 2017 VA addendum opinion inadequate, as they did not address the Veteran’s lay statements that he has suffered from sinusitis since service. Therefore, a remand is necessary to obtain a VA opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s sinusitis that considers the Veteran’s lay statements. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain a VA opinion for the Veteran’s chronic sinusitis. The examiner must review the claims file. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: Whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s sinusitis is related to his active service. Specifically, is it at least as likely as not that his chronic sinusitis (1) began during active service or (2) was noted during service with continuity of the same symptomatology since service. The examiner should address the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) that note treatment for a viral infection, pharyngitis, pneumonia, and sinusitis while in service. For instance, the Veteran’s STRs note that he had issues with his pharynx and a postnasal drip in February 1968 and November 1968 respectively. The examiner should also consider the Veteran’s statements that he has had sinus issues since service as well as his reports of in-service symptoms. If the examiner has a medical reason to accept or reject the proposition that the Veteran’s reported in service and thereafter represented the onset of his current disability, this reasoning should be provided and explained. 2. Then, re-adjudicate the claim. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. E. Grossman, 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.