Citation Nr: 21012639 Decision Date: 03/04/21 Archive Date: 03/04/21 DOCKET NO. 13-22 022A DATE: March 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for diverticulosis, to include as due to herbicide and asbestos exposure, and to include as secondary to service-connected hepatitis C, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1968 to August 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from May 2012 and July 2015 rating decisions issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was remanded for Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) development in June 2017 and March and November 2020, and has been returned to the Board at this time for further appellate review. 1. Entitlement to service connection for diverticulosis, to include as due to herbicide and asbestos exposure, and to include as secondary to service-connected hepatitis C, is remanded. The Veteran contends that his diverticulosis began in or was caused by his time in service, including his conceded exposure to herbicide agents and exposure to asbestos. The Veteran also contends that his diverticulosis was caused or aggravated by his service-connected hepatitis C. VA opinions were obtained regarding this claim in March 2019 and May and December 2020. Unfortunately, none of these opinions contain a sufficient rationale to allow the Board to make an informed decision. Accordingly, remand for a new VA opinion is warranted. 2. Entitlement to TDIU is remanded. The issue of entitlement to TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for diverticulosis, and therefore, is remanded. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (holding that where a decision on one issue would have a “significant impact” upon another, and that impact in turn could render any appellate review on the other claim meaningless and a waste of judicial resources, the two claims are inextricably intertwined). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an opinion with a qualified clinician who has not previously opined about the Veteran’s claim to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s diverticulosis.  If the selected clinician determines that an examination is necessary to respond to this request, such examination should be scheduled. Following review of the claims file, and examination of the Veteran if deemed necessary, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s diverticulosis began in or is otherwise caused by the Veteran’s active service, including his exposure to certain herbicide agents, including Agent Orange, and asbestos. The examiner should also opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s diverticulosis is (a) caused by; or (b) aggravated (i.e., worsened beyond the normal progression of the disease) by the Veteran’s service-connected hepatitis C. If aggravation is found, the examiner must attempt to establish a baseline level of severity of the diverticulosis prior to aggravation by the service-connected hepatitis C. Please note, causation and aggravation are separate concepts and must be addressed independently. (Continued on the next page)   The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms capable of lay observation, and such reports must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports, he or she must provide a reason for doing so. All findings must be reported in detail and all opinions must be accompanied by a clear rationale. If any of the above issues cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation, then a detailed medical explanation as to why this is so must be provided. M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Elias, 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.