Citation Nr: 21011735 Decision Date: 03/02/21 Archive Date: 03/02/21 DOCKET NO. 12-22 538 DATE: March 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease (CAD) with left ventricular dysfunction, to include as secondary to hypertension, polycythemia vera and/or erthrocytosis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1983 to February 1987. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2010 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The claim was remanded in November 2013, December 2014, August 2015 and May 2017 for further development. That development has been completed, and the case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. The Board regrets further delay in this case but finds that a remand is necessary. In March 2020, April 2020 and July 2020 statements, the Veteran and his representative requested the credentials and curriculum vitae (CV) of the October 2019 VA examiner. The Veteran also requested a copy of VA’s letter of engagement (instructions to the examiner). The representative was provided with a copy of the VA examination report that was already of record. See March 2020 third-party correspondence. However, there is no indication that the AOJ made any efforts to obtain the examiner’s CV or any of the other requested documents. VA is presumed to have properly chosen an examiner who is qualified to provide competent medical evidence, but the Veteran may challenge the competency of an examiner. See Francway v. Wilkie, 930 F.3d 1377 (2019) (holding that once a challenge to an examiner’s competency is raised, the presumption of competency is rebutted, and VA must satisfy its burden of persuasion as to the examiner’s qualifications and respond to the challenge by providing information about the qualifications of a medical examiner to the veteran). In this case, the Veteran has not alleged any specific reason why the October 2019 VA examiner was not competent to conduct the examination. However, the requirement that a Veteran raise the issue of the competency of a medical examiner “must be offset by ‘the ability to secure from the VA the information necessary to raise the competency challenge.’” Fears v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 308, 317 (2019) (quoting Francway, 930 F.3d at 1381). Consequently, once a claimant requests information about an examiner’s qualifications, the duty to assist mandates that the claimant “has the right, absent unusual circumstances, to the curriculum vitae and other information about qualifications of a medical examiner.” Id. Accordingly, on remand, to the extent possible, the CV for the October 2019 VA examiner, the engagement letter to the VA examiner, and any examination inquiries (including questions asked of the examiner), should be obtained, associated with the record, and provided to the Veteran and his representative for review. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records, to include records dated since October 2019. 2. Information regarding the qualifications of the October 2019 VA examination related to a heart disability should be provided to the Veteran consistent with Francway v. Wilkie, 940 F.3d 1304, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (en banc). Upon receipt of such, associate it with the record and provide the Veteran and his representative a copy thereof. If the requested information is not obtainable, the Veteran and his representative should be notified and the reasons for such should be documented in the record. All efforts to obtain such records should be documented in the claims folder. 3. Provide the Veteran and his representative with a copy of the engagement letter for the VA examiner who conducted the October 2019 VA examination related to a heart disability, and any examination inquiries (including questions asked of the examiner). If the requested documents are not obtainable, the Veteran and his representative should be notified and the reasons for such should be documented in the record. 4. Then readjudicate the claim. If this benefit is not granted, the Veteran must be furnished a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and given an appropriate opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further consideration. M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D.S. Chilcote, 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.