Citation Nr: 21013872 Decision Date: 03/10/21 Archive Date: 03/10/21 DOCKET NO. 15-16 090 DATE: March 10, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a lung disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from April 1952 to February 1956. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2013 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO). In April 2018, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge, and a transcript of that hearing has been associated with the electronic claims file. In July 2018 and June 2020, the Board remanded the claims for further development. In June 2020, the Board directed the RO to obtain a medical opinion addressing the natures of the lung disabilities. In a January 2021 medical opinion, a VA examiner addressed whether the lung nodules were related to in-service asbestosis exposure. That examiner did not address whether the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and bilateral atelectasis are related to in-service asbestoses exposure. Therefore, the RO did not comply with the directives of the June 2020 Board remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). In a January 2021 medical opinion, the VA examiner did not discuss whether the left shoulder degenerative joint disease was related to active service. That examiner did address whether the right shoulder degenerative joint disease was related to active service. The examiner, however, did not address the Veteran’s assertion of continuity of symptomatology for the degenerative joint disease. In light of the above, addendums to the VA examination reports are necessary. VA treatment records reveal that in February 2010 the Veteran reported that he planned to see a private pulmonologist. In April 2012, the Veteran authorized the release of Dr. Anderson’s records. The RO did not attempt to obtain these records. In May 2013, a letter to Dr. Rodriguez was returned as undeliverable. In July 2013, the Veteran provided an update authorization for those records with a new address, but the RO did not attempt to obtain those records. In May 2019, the Veteran reported that he was treated at the Miami VA Medical Center from 1985 to 2007. The RO only obtained records from that facility from August 2000 to the present. Based on the above, the RO should attempt to obtain additional VA and private treatment records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify all treatment for his shoulder and lung disabilities and obtain any identified records. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for Drs. Anderson and Rodriguez and any private pulmonologist. Make two requests for the authorized records from Drs. Anderson and Rodriguez and any private pulmonologist, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records from the Miami VA Medical Center for the period from January 1985 to August 2000. 2. After the development in 1 is completed, the RO should arrange for the Veteran’s electronic claims file to be reviewed by the VA examiner who prepared the January 2021 VA medical opinion for the preparation of an addendum regarding the natures of COPD and bilateral atelectasis. If that examiner is unavailable, arrange for the claims file to be reviewed by another medical professional. The Veteran should only be scheduled for another examination if the new medical professional deems it necessary. The clinician must opine whether it is at least as likely as not that COPD is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including exposure to asbestos. The clinician must opine whether it is at least as likely as not that bilateral atelectasis is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including exposure to asbestos. 3. After the development in 1 is completed, the RO should arrange for the Veteran’s electronic claims file to be reviewed by the VA examiner who prepared the January 2021 VA medical opinion for the preparation of an addendum regarding the nature of bilateral degenerative joint disease of the shoulders. If that examiner is unavailable, arrange for the claims file to be reviewed by another medical professional. The Veteran should only be scheduled for another examination if the new medical professional deems it necessary. The clinician must opine whether it is at least as likely as not that bilateral degenerative joint disease of the shoulders is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including using wear and tear from repetitive motion from operating power shovels and cranes. Accepting the Veteran’s reporting of continuity of shoulder pain symptomatology since service as credible, the examiner must opine on whether it is at least as likely as not that bilateral degenerative joint disease of the shoulders (1) began during active duty, (2) manifested within one year after discharge from service in February 1955, or (3) was noted during service with continuity of the same symptomatology of shoulder pain since service. 4. Thereafter, readjudicate the claims on appeal. If any benefit sought in connection with the claims remains denied, the Veteran should be provided with an appropriate Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), with a copy to his representative, and given the opportunity to respond. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Cherry, 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.