Citation Nr: 21012973 Decision Date: 03/08/21 Archive Date: 03/08/21 DOCKET NO. 09-20 839 DATE: March 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a cardiovascular disability (other than coronary artery disease (CAD)), to include hypertension, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1964 to June 1968, with service in Vietnam. He died in June 2010. The appellant is his surviving son. See September 2010 Regional Office (RO) Administrative Decision. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2008 rating decision which, in relevant part, denied service connection for hypertension (to include a claim for vascular disease). In October 2009, a Board videoconference hearing was held; a transcript is in the record. A March 2010 Board decision, inter alia, denied service connection for hypertension, to include vascular disease. The Veteran appealed that denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). [As noted above, the Veteran died in June 2010, prior to the promulgation of decision by the CAVC.] In a January 2011 Order, the CAVC granted a Joint Motion (JMR) to vacate and remand the portion of the March 2010 Board decision that denied service connection for hypertension, to include vascular disease, and returned this matter to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the JMR. [In the January 2011 JMR, the parties indicated that the Board had failed to consider all relevant evidence of record and discuss all potentially applicable laws and regulations in its March 2010 decision, insofar as it failed to consider whether the Veteran’s claim of service connection for vascular disease encompassed his diagnosed CAD. However, an interim (June 2011) rating decision granted service connection for CAD, rated 10 percent, effective March 3, 2008 (the date of the Veteran’s claim for service connection for hypertension and vascular disease), until the date of the Veteran’s death. Accordingly, the matter of whether the claim for vascular disease encompassed CAD is now moot.] July 2011 Board correspondence advised the appellant that the Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) who conducted the October 2009 hearing (with the Veteran) is no longer with the Board, and offered him the opportunity for a Board hearing. He did not reply; per the letter, the Board assumes he does not want another hearing. In September 2011, August 2017, and September 2020, the case was remanded for additional development. Entitlement to service connection for a cardiovascular disability (other than CAD), to include hypertension The Board regrets the delay inherent with another remand, but because there was not substantial compliance with previous remand instructions, another remand is necessary. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The Board’s September 2020 remand directed the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to ask the appellant to provide authorizations for VA to obtain any outstanding private treatment records and all records pertaining to the Veteran’s South Carolina Workers’ Compensation claim in approximately December 2008 (prior to his June 2010 death). Subsequent September 2020 VA correspondence asked the appellant (who is representing himself in this appeal) to complete and return an enclosed VA Form 21-4142 to obtain records of private medical treatment; the correspondence did not request (or even identify) a release for the Workers’ Compensation records (as directed in both the August 2017 and September 2020 Board remands). Accordingly, remand is necessary to request that the appellant provide appropriate authorization to allow VA to obtain all records associated with the Veteran’s South Carolina Workers’ Compensation claim in approximately December 2008. See Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786 (Fed. Cir. 2016). If any Workers’ Compensation records are received on remand, an addendum opinion from the December 2020 examiner which includes consideration of such evidence may be necessary. [The September 2020 remand also directed development for private and VA treatment records from September 2008 to June 2010. The appellant previously provided a release for five physicians/clinics in October 2011; records from those physicians/clinics were obtained in April 2013, May 2013, and July 2016. A review of the current record found that records of VA treatment from September 2008 through June 2010 are associated with the claims file. See CAPRI record dated June 12, 2010 (which, for example, includes a September 29, 2008 VA treatment record that notes the Veteran was then a new patient and establishing care). Accordingly, a remand to obtain those records is not necessary.] The matter is REMANDED for the following: 1. Ask the appellant to provide the identifying information and release(s), including specifically both VA Forms 21-4142 and 4142a, necessary for VA to secure complete records pertaining to the Veteran’s December 2008 South Carolina Workers’ Compensation claim. If he complies with the request, secure for the record complete records of the Veteran’s Workers’ Compensation claim, including all determinations made and all evidence considered in connection with the determination(s). If any records requested are unavailable, the reason must be explained in the record. If the Workers’ Compensation office does not respond to a VA request for records, the appellant must be so advised, and also advised that ultimately it is his responsibility to ensure that such records are received. 2. Thereafter, arrange for any further development suggested by additional evidence received (e.g., an addendum advisory medical opinion from the December 2020 VA examiner regarding the likely etiology of the Veteran’s hypertension if Workers’ Compensation records are received), and readjudicate the claim. [Before returning the case to the Board, ensure all development directed above is completed to forestall yet under remand under Stegall.] GEORGE R. SENYK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Dupont, 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.