Citation Nr: 21023096 Decision Date: 04/20/21 Archive Date: 04/20/21 DOCKET NO. 17-29 111 DATE: April 20, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder, claimed as diverticulitis with internal hemorrhoids, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from January 1976 to May 1981, from December 1981 to December 1985, from December 2003 to September 2004, and from February 2005 to June 2005. He also had service in the Air National Guard. His decorations include the National Defense Service Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio. This case was previously before the Board in February 2020. The Board reopened the previously denied claim for service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder, but denied the claim on consideration of the underlying merits. The Veteran appealed the Board’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In November 2020, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) filed by the parties to the appeal (the Veteran, through an attorney, and representatives from VA General Counsel), thereby vacating the Board’s decision insofar as it denied service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder and remanding the matter for readjudication. Entitlement to service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder, claimed as diverticulitis with internal hemorrhoids, is remanded. In the JMPR filed with the Court, the parties to the appeal agreed that the Board relied on an inadequate May 2017 VA examination report when it denied service connection for the Veteran’s gastrointestinal disorder. More specifically, the parties noted that the examiner’s rationale was based solely on the absence of contemporaneous medical evidence in the Veteran’s service treatment records, and that the examiner did not address the Veteran’s complaint during an April 2014 VA examination that he had had abdominal pain in service or his February 2017 Statement in Support of Claim in which he described complaints of gastro distress, diarrhea, bloating, and constipation during service. Pursuant to the terms of the JMPR, a new or addendum medical opinion is required. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007) (when VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate); see also April 2021 Informal Hearing Presentation. This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain copies of records pertaining to any VA treatment the Veteran has received since the time that such records were last procured, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The evidence obtained, if any, should be associated with the record. 2. After the foregoing development has been completed, make arrangements to provide the record on appeal to the VA examiner who previously offered an opinion with respect to the etiology of the Veteran’s gastrointestinal disorder in May 2017. The examiner should be asked to review the expanded record and prepare a supplemental report with respect to the matter of whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., whether it is 50 percent or more probable) that the Veteran’s gastrointestinal disorder had its onset in, or is otherwise related to, his service. In so doing, the examiner must discuss the medical significance, if any, of the Veteran’s lay statements, including his complaint during an April 2014 VA examination that he had had abdominal pain in service and his February 2017 Statement in Support of Claim in which he described complaints of gastro distress, diarrhea, bloating, and constipation during service. The VA examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, events, and injuries in service, and that his reports must be taken into account, along with the other evidence of record, in formulating the requested opinion. If the May 2017 VA examiner is no longer employed by VA or is otherwise unable to provide the opinion(s) requested, arrange to obtain the requested information from another qualified examiner. The need for another examination and/or telephonic or video interview of the Veteran is left to the discretion of the examiner selected to offer the requested opinion(s). A complete medical rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the issue on appeal should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Joseph T. Leonard, 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.