Citation Nr: 21020832
Decision Date: 04/08/21	Archive Date: 04/08/21

DOCKET NO. 16-03 632
DATE: April 8, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as due to herbicide agent exposure and as secondary to service-connected coronary artery disease (CAD) status post catherization is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran honorably served in the United States Army from November 1964 to October 1968. 

This matter appears before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a January 2013 rating decision of the Regional Office (RO) in Detroit, Michigan. In December 2018, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge via videoconference from the RO in Detroit, Michigan; a transcript is of record. 

Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as due to herbicide agent exposure and as secondary to service-connected CAD status post catherization

In November 2020, the Veteran’s claim of entitlement was previously remanded by the Board to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The Board directed the AOJ to obtain private treatment records and an addendum opinion addressing secondary service connection. In December 2020, VA sent the Veteran a letter asking him to complete and return VA Form 4142 for Dr. Kue. To date, VA has not received a completed form from the Veteran. The Board is taking this opportunity to remind the Veteran that while VA has a statutory duty to assist in developing evidence pertinent to a claim, a Veteran also has a duty to assist and cooperate with VA in developing evidence. The duty to assist is not a one-way street. Wood v. Derwinski, 1Vet. App. 190 (1991). VA’s duty must be understood as a duty to assist a Veteran in developing his or her claim, rather than a duty on the part of VA to develop the entire claim with the Veteran performing a passive role. Turk v. Peake, 21Vet. App. 565 (2008).

In January 2021, VA requested an addendum opinion addressing secondary service connection. That same month, an addendum opinion was associated with the record. The January 2021 examiner opined that the Veteran’s hypertension was less likely than not proximately due to or the result of his service-connected CAD. Of note, secondary service connection is warranted for a current disability that is either proximately caused by or aggravated by a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.301(a), (b); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). The Board finds that the January 2021 secondary service connection opinion is inadequate because it fails to address aggravation. Atencio v. O’Rouke, 30 Vet. App. 74, 91 (2018). Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board’s previous remand directives.  Another remand is required.  Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998).

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s hypertension is at least as likely as not related to proximately due to or aggravated beyond its natural progression by service-connected CAD.

Of note, aggravation need not be a permanent worsening of the disability. A temporary worsening of a disability may constitute aggravation. Ward & Neal v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 233 (2019).

The examiner should include a medical rationale for all opinions offered. 

 

 

R. FEINBERG

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	S. N. Fournier, 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.