Citation Nr: 21022229 Decision Date: 04/15/21 Archive Date: 04/15/21 DOCKET NO. 11-14 674 DATE: April 15, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1971 to November 1972. The Veteran testified at a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge in June 2017. A transcript of the hearing is of record. In November 2019, the Veteran was informed that the Veterans Law Judge who conducted the hearing is no longer employed by the Board and of his right to a new hearing; however, the Veteran did not respond. As such, the Board will consider his claim based on the evidence of record. The Board remanded the case for further development in October 2017. In a January 2020 decision, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C. The Veteran appealed the Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a November 2020 Order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (Joint Motion) filed by the parties to vacate the January 2020 Board decision and remand the case. Upon review, the Board finds that additional development is necessary prior to adjudication of the claim. The Veteran was afforded VA examinations in connection with his claim in April 2018 and May 2019. In both examination reports, the VA examiner indicated that immunization has not been shown to transmit hepatitis C; however, VA has determined that in-service air gun inoculations are a “biologically plausible” means of transmitting hepatitis C. The Veteran’s service treatment records show that he received several immunizations while in service. As such, an additional VA examination is needed to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s hepatitis C. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) should request that the Veteran provide the names and addresses of any and all health care providers who have provided treatment for hepatitis C. A specific request should be made for any medical records from the Veteran’s period of incarceration. After acquiring this information and obtaining any necessary authorization, the AOJ should obtain and associate these records with the claims file. Any outstanding VA medical records should also be obtained and associated with the claims file. 2. After any outstanding records are obtained, the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any hepatitis C that may be present. Any and all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file, including the Veteran’s service treatment records, post-service medical records, and assertions. The examiner should note that the Veteran is competent to attest to matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, including observable symptomatology. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the appellant, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. The examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has a current hepatitis C disorder that is causally or etiologically related to his military service. He or she should specifically address the contention that the Veteran contracted hepatitis C as the result of inoculation by air gun in service. A clear rationale for all opinions would be helpful and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. Because it is important “that each disability be viewed in relation to its history [,]” 38 C.F.R. § 4.1, copies of all pertinent records in the appellant’s claims file, or in the alternative, the claims file, must be made available to the examiner for review. 3. After completing these actions, the AOJ should conduct any other development as may be indicated. JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. J. Williams, 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.