Citation Nr: 21021892 Decision Date: 04/14/21 Archive Date: 04/14/21 DOCKET NO. 17-62 527A DATE: April 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a lymph node condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from March 1968 to May 1970. He received the Combat Infantryman Badge. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In July 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) remanded the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a lymph node condition to the Board. The Court found that the Board’s denial of the claim in September 2019 did not provide adequate reasons and bases, as the Board did not discuss why a lack of a medical examination still satisfied VA’s duty to assist.   Entitlement to service connection for a lymph node condition is remanded. The Veteran has provided lay evidence that he developed a lymph node condition during service. Specifically, the Veteran has reported undergoing a surgical procedure at Jackson Memorial Hospital at some point during the 1970s to remove swollen lymph nodes that were possibly cancerous. See December 2017 VA Form 9. The Veteran argues his swollen lymph node condition is due to service, including possibly due to exposure to Agent Orange or other chemical agents during service, or due to an intravenous injection of chlorine bleach shortly before his discharge from service. The Veteran believes such condition may continue today. The Veteran has not received a VA examination of his lymph nodes in connection with his claim. VA is obliged to provide an examination or obtain a medical opinion in a claim of service connection when the record contains competent evidence that the claimant has a current disability or signs and symptoms of a current disability, the record indicates that the disability or signs and symptoms of disability may be associated with active service, and the record does not contain sufficient information to make a decision on the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103; McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81-83 (2006). This matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an examination for his lymph nodes. The examiner should indicate review the Veteran’s claim file, including the Veteran’s lay report of having had post-service surgery to remove lymph node(s) of his thigh. The examiner is to respond to the following: (a.) Does the Veteran have any present lymph node condition? If so, please list it. If not, please explain why. (b.) For any lymph node condition identified, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to an event, disease, or injury in service? In answering the above question, the examiner’s attention is invited to the Veteran’s report of being given an intravenous chlorine bleach solution around May 1970 during service, at which point he began to experience pain and discomfort in his legs, arms and chest. Later, the Veteran reports his swollen lymph nodes were removed, as they were suspected to be cancerous. See December 2017 VA Form 9. (c.) For any lymph node condition identified, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicide agents during his service in Vietnam? (CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE)   A comprehensive 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 the state of 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). Paul Sorisio Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Hermsdorfer, 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.