Citation Nr: 21011112 Decision Date: 02/27/21 Archive Date: 02/27/21 DOCKET NO. 190619-10237 DATE: February 27, 2021 REMANDED The issue of service connection for lumbar spondylosis with degenerative changes and scoliosis (lumbar disorder) is remanded. The issue of service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is remanded. The issue of service connection for coronary atherosclerosis is remanded. The issue of service connection for unspecified arthritis of the body is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1952 to October 1953. The Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) notes that the rating decision on appeal was issued in May 2019. In the June 2019 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket; therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. In August 2019, the Board denied the issues on appeal. The Veteran appealed the August 2019 denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans’ Claims (Court). In a July 2020 Memorandum Decision, the Court vacated, in part, and remanded the Board’s denial of service connection for lumbar disorder, GERD, coronary atherosclerosis, and unspecified arthritis because the Board failed to obtain a VA examination. 1. The issue of service connection for lumbar disorder is remanded. 2. The issue of service connection for GERD is remanded. 3. The issue of service connection for coronary atherosclerosis is remanded. 4. The issue of service connection for unspecified arthritis of the body is remanded. The issues of service connection for lumbar disorder, GERD, coronary atherosclerosis, and unspecified arthritis of the body are remanded to correct a duty to assist error that occurred prior to the May 2019 rating decision on appeal. The AOJ failed to obtain a VA examination when there are competent diagnoses of record, the Veteran’s private physician indicated the Veteran’s disorders could be related to service, and the Veteran contends that his current disorders are related to in-service asbestos exposure from boilers and duct work. See April 2017, Private treatment record; February 2019, VA Form 21-526EZ; November 2017, VA Form 21-4138. The Board, accordingly, finds that the AOJ should obtain an opinion regarding the nature and etiology of current lumbar disorder, GERD, coronary atherosclerosis, and unspecified arthritis of the body. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of current lumbar disorder, GERD, coronary atherosclerosis, and unspecified arthritis of the body. Upon complete review of the claims file and physical examination of the Veteran, the examiner should render an opinion as to the following: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that a current lumbar disorder manifested during or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s period of active service, to include in-service exposure to asbestos. (b.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that current GERD manifested during or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s period of active service, to include in-service exposure to asbestos. (c.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that current coronary atherosclerosis manifested during or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s period of active service, to include in-service exposure to asbestos. (d.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any current unspecified arthritis of the body manifested during or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s period of active service, to include in-service exposure to asbestos. The Veteran is competent to report his symptoms, experiences, and history, and such reports must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinions. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports of symptomatology, he or she must provide a reason for doing so. A comprehensive rationale for all opinions must be provided. All pertinent evidence, including both lay and medical, should be considered. If an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to speculation, the examiner must explain why this is so and state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). JAMES L. MARCH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Straughn, 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.