Citation Nr: 21010853 Decision Date: 02/25/21 Archive Date: 02/25/21 DOCKET NO. 16-24 498A DATE: February 25, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for residuals of cold injuries to the hands and feet is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral vascular disease is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left-sided stroke is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1951 to September 1954. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of March 2015 and July 2015 rating decisions by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2019, the Veteran testified at a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge of the Board who is no longer active. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. As described below, the Veteran’s claims are being remanded for further development. On remand, the Veteran should be given the opportunity to request another hearing. In a September 2019 decision, the Board denied service connection for the issues currently on appeal. The Veteran appealed the denials to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which in September 2020, on the basis of a Joint Motion for Partial Remand, vacated the denials and remanded the matter to the Board for corrective action. The case is now again before the Board for further appellate action. 1. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of cold injuries to the hands and feet is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral vascular disease is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left-sided stroke is remanded. In September 2019, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for residuals of cold injuries to the hands and feet, peripheral vascular disease, coronary artery disease, hypertension, and residuals of a left-sided stroke. The Veteran appealed the denials to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which in September 2020, on the basis of an August 2020 Joint Motion for Partial Remand, vacated the denials and remanded the matters to the Board for further consideration. The Joint Motion for Partial Remand included a directive to obtain an addendum to the Veteran’s May 2016 VA cold injury residuals examination report or a new VA cold injury residuals examination and medical opinion that takes into account and discusses the Veteran’s lay statements regarding an in-service cold-weather injury and an October 2014 podiatry note stating that the Veteran had frostbite symptoms before readjudicating the Veteran’s claims. An October 2014 VA podiatry note reported that the Veteran complained of experiencing pain in his right big toe since the 1950s. He was diagnosed with “onychocryptosis [right] great lateral symptoms of frostbite neuropathy.” Because the Veteran has claimed that his service connection claims for peripheral vascular disease, coronary artery disease, hypertension, and residuals of a left sided stroke are secondary to his cold injuries residuals, the parties to the Joint Motion for Partial Remand agreed that those claims are inextricably intertwined with his claim of entitlement to service connection for cold injuries to the hands and feet. Henderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 11, 20 (1998). Therefore, a remand is warranted to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction to obtain an addendum to the Veteran’s May 2016 VA cold injury residuals examination report or a new examination and medical opinion. By this remand, the Board makes no determination, express or implied, concerning the credibility of any lay statements on file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the Veteran an opportunity to request another hearing before a Veterans Law Judge of the Board, as the Veteran previously testified at a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge who is no longer active. 2. Return the claims file, including a copy of this remand, to the VA examiner who conducted the May 2016 cold injury residuals examination, or to another appropriate medical professional if that individual is unavailable, to provide an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s cold injuries to his hands and feet. The Veteran’s claims file, to include a copy of the remand, must be made available to the examiner along with any other information the medical professional deems pertinent. If an additional examination is required for the examiner to sufficiently provide an etiology opinion, then a new examination should be afforded 3. After a review of the claims file, the examiner should provide an opinion that answers the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s cold injuries to his hands and feet are etiologically related to the Veteran’s active service? 4. The provided examination opinion must reflect consideration of the medical and lay evidence of record and set forth a complete rationale for all findings and conclusions, including a discussion of the Veteran’s lay statements regarding an in-service cold-weather injury and an October 2014 podiatry note stating that the Veteran had symptoms related to frostbite. 5. After the development described above, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal, including the inextricably intertwined issues of service connection for peripheral vascular disease, coronary artery disease, hypertension, and residuals of a left sided stroke. If any determination remains unfavorable to the Veteran, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). These claims must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Moore, 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.