Citation Nr: 21012944 Decision Date: 03/08/21 Archive Date: 03/08/21 DOCKET NO. 14-31 046A DATE: March 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a lung condition, to include as due to ionizing radiation exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1954 to September 1956. He died in January 2018. His surviving spouse has been substituted as the appellant in this matter. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2012 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. In May 2019, the Board remanded the matter for further development The appellant and her daughter testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in November 2018. A transcript of the hearing is of record.   Entitlement to service connection for a lung condition, to include as due to ionizing radiation exposure, is remanded. The Board regrets the delay in issuing a decision in this matter, but finds that another remand is warranted to ensure substantial compliance with its prior remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998); D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008). As explained in its May 2019 remand, the Board has found that the Veteran met the criteria for a “radiation-exposed veteran,” as defined in 38 U.S.C. § 1112(c)(3) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(d)(3), based on his participation in atomic testing at Nevada sites during his active service. The Board remanded the claim for a VA medical opinion addressing whether the Veteran’s respiratory disorder may have been related to any incident of service, including ionizing radiation exposure. The Board instructed, in part, that the opinion should acknowledge and consider the studies submitted by the appellant regarding the impact of thorium, beryllium, and radionuclides on the respiratory system. Pursuant to the Board’s remand, a VA medical opinion was obtained in November 2019. While otherwise adequate, it does not discuss the aforementioned studies submitted by the appellant, as instructed by the Board. Thus, it does not substantially comply with the Board’s remand directives. On remand, the medical professional who provided the November 2019 opinion should be asked to provide an addendum to that opinion reflecting consideration of those studies. If that medical professional is not available, the addendum may be provided by a different medical professional. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Request the medical professional who provided the November 2019 opinion should be asked to provide an addendum to that opinion which considers the studies submitted by the appellant regarding the impact of thorium, beryllium, and radionuclides on the respiratory system (see November 2018 Correspondence). If that medical professional is not available, or cannot provide the addendum within a reasonable timeframe, the addendum may be provided by a different medical professional. P.M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Rutkin, 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.