Citation Nr: 21023109 Decision Date: 04/20/21 Archive Date: 04/20/21 DOCKET NO. 17-20 199 DATE: April 20, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for color blindness is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for duodenitis with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for right lower lung calcified granuloma is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1953 to January 1973. He passed away in April 2020. The appellant is his surviving spouse and has been substituted in the current matter. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2017 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The case was remanded in August 2019 for further development; it was also dismissed in May 2020 due to the Veteran’s death pending substitution of the appellant. It is once again before the Board. In June 2019, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge; a transcript of that hearing is of record. Upon preliminary review, the record reflects the appellant appealed a September 2020 rating decision that denied service connection for cause of death. Because the legal framework enacted pursuant to the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) is applicable to that appeal and is not applicable to the decision herein, and the appellant requested a Board hearing, the Board is not taking jurisdiction of that issue. The appeal will be the subject of a future Board decision, if otherwise in order. All issues are remanded. All issues were remanded in August 2019 for various examinations. Although the Veteran passed away before he could attend such examinations, the medical questions that were the bases of the examinations have not been answered. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) did not seek medical opinions for any issue currently on appeal. Whether a medical examiner can gather the necessary information based on other sources in the existing record is a medical question, not a legal one. As a result, remand for all issues is necessary to obtain medical opinions regarding the medical questions discussed in the August 2019 Board remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should arrange for a VA medical opinion to determine the nature and likely cause of his color blindness. The examiner should review the claim file (including this remand) and note such review was conducted. Based on review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion with detailed rationale that responds to the following: Is the Veteran’s color blindness a congenital defect or congenital disease? Please explain why. (A defect is a condition that can neither improve nor worsen. A congenital disease, for VA adjudication purposes, is a congenital condition that is subject to improvement and/or worsening.) If it is not feasible to answer the above question, the examiner must provide a detailed explanation and rationale for why such could not be accomplished. Specifically, if the medical professional cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she must provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered; a conclusory rationale based solely on the fact that the Veteran has passed away will not be deemed adequate. 2. The AOJ should arrange for a VA medical opinion to determine the nature and likely cause of his sinus symptoms. The examiner should review the claim file (including this remand) and note such review was conducted. Based on review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion with detailed rationale that responds to the following: (a.) Is it possible to identify, by diagnosis, any sinus disabilities present since September 2016? If it is not feasible to diagnose a disability, the examiner must provide a detailed explanation and rationale for why such could not be accomplished. Specifically, if the medical professional cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she must provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered; a conclusory rationale based solely on the fact that the Veteran has passed away will not be deemed adequate. (b.) If a sinus disability is diagnosed, is it at least as likely as not (50% or greater probability) that such disability was either incurred in or otherwise related to the Veteran’s military service? Please explain why. If it is not feasible to answer the question, the examiner must provide a detailed explanation and rationale for why such could not be accomplished. Specifically, if the medical professional cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she must provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered; a conclusory rationale based solely on the fact that the Veteran has passed away will not be deemed adequate. 3. The AOJ should arrange for a VA medical opinion to determine the nature and likely cause of any right hip disability. The examiner should review the claim file (including this remand) and note such review was conducted. Based on review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion with detailed rationale that responds to the following: (a.) Is it possible to identify, by diagnosis, any right hip disability present since September 2016? If it is not feasible to diagnose a disability, the examiner must provide a detailed explanation and rationale for why such could not be accomplished. Specifically, if the medical professional cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she must provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered; a conclusory rationale based solely on the fact that the Veteran has passed away will not be deemed adequate. (b.) If a right hip disability is not diagnosed, then was the Veteran’s right hip pain while walking, see June 2019 Board hearing, at least as likely as not related to service? Please explain why. If it is not feasible to answer the question, the examiner must provide a detailed explanation and rationale for why such could not be accomplished. Specifically, if the medical professional cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she must provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered; a conclusory rationale based solely on the fact that the Veteran has passed away will not be deemed adequate. 4. The AOJ should arrange for a VA medical opinion to assess the severity of his service-connected duodenitis with GERD. The examiner should review the claim file (including this remand) and note such review was conducted. Based on review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion with detailed rationale that responds to the following: Is it possible to determine the severity of the Veteran’s duodenitis with GERD? Specifically, did the Veteran have (i) moderate symptoms with recurring episodes of severe symptoms two or three times a year averaging 10 days in duration; or with continuous moderate manifestations, or (ii) moderately severe symptoms, less than severe but with impairment of health manifested by anemia and weight loss; or recurrent incapacitating episodes averaging 10 days or more in duration at least four or more times a year, or (iii) severe symptoms, with pain only partially relieved by standard ulcer therapy, periodic vomiting, recurrent hematemesis or melena, with manifestations of anemia and weight loss productive of definite impairment of health? Please explain why. If it is not feasible to answer the question, the examiner must provide a detailed explanation and rationale for why such could not be accomplished. Specifically, if the medical professional cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she must provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered; a conclusory rationale based solely on the fact that the Veteran has passed away will not be deemed adequate. 5. The AOJ should arrange for a VA medical opinion to assess the current severity of his service-connected duodenitis with GERD. The examiner should review the claim file (including this remand) and note such review was conducted. Based on review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion with detailed rationale that responds to the following: Is it possible to determine the severity of the Veteran’s right lower lung calcified granuloma? Specifically, is it possible to determine Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) or Diffusion Capacity of the Lung for Carbon Monoxide by the Single Breath Method (DLCO (SB)) results? Or whether the Veteran’s maximum exercise capacity less than 15 ml/kg/min oxygen consumption with cardiorespiratory limitation, or; cor pulmonale or pulmonary hypertension, or; requires outpatient oxygen therapy? Please explain why. If it is not feasible to answer the questions, the examiner must provide a detailed explanation and rationale for why such could not be accomplished. Specifically, if the medical professional cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she must provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered; a conclusory rationale based solely on the fact that the Veteran has passed away will not be deemed adequate. 6. If upon completion of the above action the issues remain denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Sandler, 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.