Citation Nr: 21025221 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 12-01 725 DATE: April 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to February 4, 2007, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the Air Force from December 1969 to December 1976. The Veteran had an additional period of service from December 1976 to October 1981, but it was determined that the character of service for this period was a bar to receipt of VA benefits. In January 2019, the Board, among other things, denied the Veteran’s claims for service connection of hypertension and GERD. The Veteran appealed the decision to the CAVC which, in June 2020, vacated the Board’s decision and remanded it for further development. See Tucker v. West, 11 Vet. App. 369, 374 (1998) (remand is appropriate “where the record is otherwise inadequate”). The January 2019 rating decision also remanded the issue of entitlement to TDIU prior to February 4, 2007. That issue is also returned to the Board and merged with the prior denied claims. 1. Entitlement to service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. In this case, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in May 2016 for GERD and hypertension. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s GERD was less likely than not a result of his military service. However, the examiner did not consider or address whether the Veteran’s service connected alcohol abuse disorder caused or aggravated his GERD. Further, the examiner mischaracterized the Veteran’s two episodes of gastroentenitis in service as a single episode of acute gastroententis. In regard the the Veteran’s hypertension, the examiner opined that it was less likely than not related to Agent Orange herbicide exposure because “Veterans and Agent Orange Update 2012 indicates there is inadequate or insufficient evidence to determine an association between essential hypertension and Agent Orange herbicide exposure. However, the examiners finding was inaccurate as the study actually found that there was “limited or suggestive evidence of an association” between herbicide exposure and hypertension. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran’s GERD is proximately due to or aggravated by his service connected alcohol abuse disorder and/or due to his two episodes of viral gastroenteritis during service. Further, the Board cannot make a fully informed decision on the issue of service connection for hypertension because the VA examiner did not provide an adequate opinion on whether his hypertension was due to his exposure to Agent Orange. Therefore, a remand is required. 3. Entitlement to TDIU prior to February 4, 2007, is remanded. To the extent that the above service connection claims may have a direct bearing on the Veteran’s schedular entitlement to TDIU during the periods remaining on appeal, this issue is remanded as intertwined. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s gastroesophageal reflux disease is at least as likely as not proximately due to service-connected alcohol abuse disorder or aggravated beyond its natural progression by service-connected alcohol abuse disorder. The examiner should also provide an opinion on whether the Veteran’s two episodes of viral gastroenteritis in service are at least as likely as not related to his currently diagnosed gastroesophageal reflux disease. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s hypertension is at least as likely as not related to the Veteran’s exposure of Agent Orange. M. Pryce Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Vample, Erica 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.