Citation Nr: 21024054 Decision Date: 04/22/21 Archive Date: 04/22/21 DOCKET NO. 16-27 107 DATE: April 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a gastrointestinal disability (to include gastroenteritis and diverticulitis) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from January 1984 to May 1988, and from December 1995 to August 1996. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran has other matters pending before the Board, which will be addressed in a separate decision. The Veteran filed a claim for service connection for gastroenteritis in March 2015. The Board interprets this as a claim for any gastrointestinal disability, for two reasons. First, VA generally has a duty to construe claims broadly, within reason, recognizing that most veterans are laypersons who may not characterize their conditions with perfect medical accuracy. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). Second, when the Veteran attempted to file a claim for diverticulitis in October 2015, the RO rejected the claim because it was “for the same condition on appeal (gastroenteritis), now claimed under a different name (diverticulitis).” That is, the RO found that the Veteran’s claim for gastroenteritis encompasses a claim for diverticulitis (as well as other related disabilities); the Board accepts this finding. The Veteran was previously denied service connection for residuals of a sigmoid resection for diverticulitis in a final Board decision in February 2015. Although the RO’s September 2015 decision did not address whether any new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen a claim encompassing diverticulitis, the Board will accept the RO’s adjudication of the claim as an implied finding that new and material evidence had been received. This is a favorable finding by the AOJ, and the Board will proceed to address the claim on the merits. See 38 U.S.C. §5104A; 38C.F.R. §3.104(c). The Board finds that a new VA medical examination is necessary to decide the Veteran’s claim. While the Veteran did have a VA examination in September 2012, this examination narrowly evaluated whether the Veteran’s sigmoid resection (performed due to recurrent diverticulitis) was service connected, and did not broadly consider all gastrointestinal disabilities the Veteran may have had. Therefore, the September 2012 examination is inadequate for deciding the present claim. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician regarding the nature and etiology of all of his current gastrointestinal disabilities. The examiner is to be provided access to the Veteran’s entire claims file. Once the examiner certifies that they have reviewed the claims file, they must answer the following: a) Identify all the Veteran’s current gastrointestinal disabilities/disorders, and estimate their onset. b) For each identified disorder, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the disorder is directly related to an in-service injury, event, or disease? The examiner should specifically address service treatment records from April 1985 and December 1985, indicating the Veteran was treated for gastroenteritis, and from January 1986, when he reported bloody toilet paper. c) For each identified disorder, is at least as likely as not that the disorder had its onset in service? The examiner should specifically address the Veteran’s testimony that he has experienced recurring abdominal pain since 1996, during his active service. d) If any of the Veteran’s gastrointestinal conditions are unrelated to his military service, what is the etiology of those conditions? The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all opinions, supported by evidence and citing any records or medical literature relied upon. If any of the above requested opinions cannot be made without resorting to speculation, the examiner must explain why. DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Shermila Sundquist 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.