Citation Nr: 21011848 Decision Date: 03/02/21 Archive Date: 03/02/21 DOCKET NO. 13-34 183A DATE: March 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a deviated septum is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for anosmia is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from April 1996 to April 2000. In July 2019, the Board remanded the appeal for evidentiary development. In April 2020, the Board decided several issues that are no longer on appeal and remanded the remaining issues listed above for additional development. The matter has since been returned to the Board for further consideration. 1. Entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a deviated septum is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for anosmia is remanded. A review of the record reveals that a remand is necessary to ensure substantial compliance with the Board’s April 2020 remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In the April 2020 remand, the Board noted that the Veteran has been diagnosed with allergic rhinitis, a deviated septum, and anosmia. He has attributed these conditions to in-service boxing injuries and/or to exposure to asbestos and other environmental contaminants. He and fellow service members have recalled his need to use a nasal spray throughout service. The Board found that VA examinations with corresponding etiological opinions were needed. Pursuant to that remand, the Veteran was afforded several VA respiratory and nasal examinations in December 2020, wherein the examiner confirmed diagnoses of the claimed conditions. Ultimately, the examiner determined that the conditions are less likely than not attributable to service “because there is no mentioned in veteran’s STR about history of injury, or treatment during in-service.” There were no further remarks. Importantly, in a January 2021 correspondence, the Veteran challenged the adequacy of the previous VA opinions, reasoning that there is insufficient rationale and conflicting information. It is also alleged that the prior VA examiners did not acknowledge the Veteran’s subjective complaints of injuries sustained during service. Given the Veteran’s statements the limited rationale provided by the December 2020 examiner, the Board finds that addendum opinions would be of considerable assistance in determining the claim. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain addendum opinions from the December 2020 VA examiner (or a similarly situated examiner) to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed allergic rhinitis, a deviated septum, and anosmia. The electronic claims files and all pertinent records must be made available to the examiner and the examiner must indicate in the examination report that these records have been reviewed. It should be noted that the Veteran is competent to attest to factual matters of which he had first-hand knowledge, including observable symptomatology. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. Following a review of the relevant records and lay statements, the examiner should identify all sinus and/or nasal conditions present during the period of the claim. The examiner should specifically confirm or rule out allergic rhinitis, a deviated septum, and anosmia. Then, with regard to each identified sinus and/or nasal condition, the examiner must state whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the condition originated during or is otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s military service. In providing the opinions, the examiner should address the statements submitted by the Veteran and fellow service members to the effect that the Veteran used a nasal spray medication throughout service. The examiner should also address the Veteran’s contention that his condition(s) are secondary to in-service boxing injuries. The examiner should also address the Veteran’s contention that his condition(s) are secondary to in-service exposure to asbestos and other environmental contaminants. In offering any opinion, the examiner must consider the full record, to include the lay statements in support of the Veteran’s claim. The examiner should also reconcile any prior report, if necessary. The rationale for any opinions offered should be provided. If the VA examiner determines that further examination is necessary in order to render the requested medical opinion, then the Veteran should be scheduled for such an examination. 2. After the development requested has been completed, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should review any report to ensure that it is in complete compliance with the directives of this remand. If the report is deficient in any manner, the AOJ must implement corrective procedures at once. MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Miller, 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.