Citation Nr: 21016188 Decision Date: 03/22/21 Archive Date: 03/22/21 DOCKET NO. 19-37 816 DATE: March 22, 2021 REMANDED The issue of service connection for a kidney disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1960 to June 1963. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2016 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously before the Board and remanded to obtain private treatment records and updated VA treatment records in September 2020. The RO sent the Veteran a development letter requesting the names and addresses of health care providers and completion and return of a general medical release form in September 2020. To date, the Veteran has not provided the names and address of any health care providers and has not returned the completed authorization for release of medical records. As the duty to assist is not a one-way street, there is substantial compliance with prior remand directives. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). 1. Service connection for a kidney disorder is remanded. The Veteran contends that as he was assisting in loading a boat onto his ship in 1963, a block came back and struck him in the right shoulder, knocking him down and injuring his shoulder, groin and left knee. See December 17, 2019, VA Form 9. The Veteran further contends that he was hospitalized for approximately 30 days and received treatment for his groin injury but nothing else. Service treatment records indicate that the Veteran was hospitalized from April 1963 to May 1963 and underwent a repair of a right indirect inguinal hernia. See May 22, 1963, Narrative Summary. This narrative summary further indicates that the right inguinal hernia was noted in service in September 1960. The Veteran was released from active duty shortly after he was released from the hospital. On remand, a Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) was completed and revealed a diagnosis of chronic kidney disease. See December 2, 2020, VA Examination. Although an examination was conducted, a medical opinion was not obtained. The Veteran asserts that he injured his kidney and groin area during the 1963 accident. A remand is appropriate to obtain a medical opinion concerning the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s chronic kidney disease, claimed as a kidney disorder. As this matter is remanded on other grounds, the RO should renew its efforts to procure any previously unobtained ongoing relevant medical records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and request that he provide the names and addresses of any and all health care providers who have provided treatment for his kidney, to include Dr. Orrell and Marion Family Practice. After acquiring this information and obtaining any necessary authorization, attempt to obtain all the records of treatment or examination from all the sources listed by the Veteran.  All information obtained must be made part of the file. All attempts to secure this evidence must be documented in the claims file, and if, after making reasonable efforts to obtain named records, they are not able to be secured, provide the required notice and opportunity to respond to the Veteran. 2. After completing directive #1, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any chronic kidney disease. The examiner should review the virtual file and address the following: (a.) Identify all kidney disorders that are currently present (or present at any time since September 15, 2016). The Veteran has described the 1963 accident as injuring the kidney at times and injuring the groin at other times. See March 31,2017, Notice of Disagreement (NOD); December 17, 2019, VA Form 9. In addition, service treatment records indicating that the Veteran had a right inguinal hernia repair correspond to the Veteran’s timeline of the 1963 accident. If the examiner disagrees with a diagnosis already established in the medical records, he/she should so state and explain why. (b.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the current chronic kidney disease manifested during or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s period of active service, to include the 1963 accident and repair of right inguinal hernia. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinions. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports of symptoms, he or she must provide a reason for doing so. A rationale for all opinions is to be provided. All pertinent evidence, including both lay and medical, should be considered. If an opinion cannot be given without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain why and state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). JAMES L. MARCH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Monica Ball Jackson, 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.