Citation Nr: 21013811 Decision Date: 03/10/21 Archive Date: 03/10/21 DOCKET NO. 17-39 589 DATE: March 10, 2021 ORDER Service connection for renal insufficiency (claimed as chronic kidney disease) as secondary to the service-connected diabetes and hypertension disabilities, is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s renal insufficiency, diagnosed during the appeal period, is secondary to his service-connected diabetes and hypertension disabilities. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to establish service connection for renal insufficiency as secondary to the service-connected diabetes and hypertension disabilities are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1967 to August 1969. The issue on appeal was previously remanded by the Board in August 2020 for further development. Service Connection for Renal Insufficiency—Laws and Analysis Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Establishing service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be granted for a disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (a). When service connection is thus established for a secondary condition, the secondary condition shall be considered a part of the original condition. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (a); Harder v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 183, 187 (1993); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995). When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The Veteran filed his initial claims for service connection for diabetes and hypertension in January 2012. Although the Veteran never specifically filed a claim pertaining to a kidney disorder, the issue of whether the Veteran had a kidney disorder as a complication of the service-connected diabetes disability was considered part and parcel of the increased rating claim for diabetes (adjudicated in the August 2020 Board decision). As such, the initial question before the Board is whether the Veteran had a diagnosed kidney disability at any point during the appeal period (i.e., beginning in January 2012, the date of the claim for service connection for diabetes). The evidence shows that the Veteran was diagnosed with a history of renal insufficiency in March 2014. See January 2021 VA kidney examination report. Although the January 2021 VA examiner indicated that the Veteran’s renal dysfunction had resolved, the Board notes that service connection may be granted upon competent evidence that a claimed disability existed at any time during the appeal period. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007). Here, the Veteran had a diagnosis of renal insufficiency during the appeal period. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran meets the first requirement of service connection, a current disability. Next, the Board finds that the Veteran’s renal insufficiency has been related to his service-connected diabetes and hypertension disabilities. See January 2021 VA medical opinion (noting that the Veteran had a brief history of renal insufficiency which the records indicated was “most likely” due to medications used to treat his hypertension and diabetic conditions between the periods of 08/31/2012 to 03/24/2014). The Board notes that there are no contradictory opinions of record. As such, the Board finds the criteria to establish service connection for renal insufficiency as secondary to the service-connected hypertension and diabetes disabilities are met. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The appeal is granted. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Casadei, 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.