Citation Nr: 21025806 Decision Date: 04/29/21 Archive Date: 04/29/21 DOCKET NO. 12-16 354 DATE: April 29, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a renal condition, to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as due to herbicide agent exposure, as secondary to service-connected diabetes, as secondary to service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and as secondary to service-connected medications, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had qualifying service from November 1968 to November 1970. In September 2015, the Veteran testified at a Board Videoconference Hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. In a February 2016 Decision, the Board, in pertinent part: (a) reopened, but denied entitlement to service connection for hypertension; and (b) denied entitlement to service connection for a renal condition. In an August 2019 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), in pertinent part, vacated the issues herein and remanded them for further adjudication. In December 2019 and November 2020 Decisions, the Board, in pertinent part, remanded both issues herein. For the reasons discussed below, the Board finds that the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) did not substantially comply with the Board’s prior remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a renal condition, to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes In its December 2019 Decision, the Board found that further etiological development was required to comply with the Court’s August 2019 JMPR; specifically, the December 2019 Board Decision explained how the April 2011 VA opinions regarding the renal condition and hypertension were inadequate, such that further medical development was required. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307 (2007). In its November 2020 Decision, the Board found that the January 2020 opinions and September 2020 addendum opinions regarding the renal condition and hypertension were still inadequate, such that further medical development was required. Barr, supra; Ward v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 233 (2019). Upon the most recent Board remand, the AOJ obtained addendum etiological opinions in December 2020 regarding both conditions. However, the Board finds the December 2020 opinions to be inadequate, such that further medical development is still required. Stegall, supra. Specifically, the examiner rendered unfavorable etiological opinions for both conditions by simply making conclusory statements without explanation as to why he reached those conclusions. Barr, supra. The Board has carefully considered whether further remand could be avoided; however, to date, the AOJ has still not obtained adequate etiological opinions such that the Board can comply with the Court’s August 2019 JMPR. As such, remand is warranted for further etiological development. 2. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as due to herbicide agent exposure, as secondary to service-connected diabetes, as secondary to service-connected PTSD, and as secondary to service-connected medications This issue is remanded for the same reasons and bases discussed above. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum etiological opinion regarding whether the recurring kidney stones (which were diagnosed during the appeal period, but have since resolved) were: (a) caused or aggravated by the Veteran’s service; or (b) proximately due to or aggravated by the Veteran’s service-connected diabetes mellitus. The examiner and AOJ are advised that the December 2020 VA opinion was inadequate because the examiner rendered unfavorable etiological opinions for both conditions by simply making conclusory statements without explanation as to why he reached those conclusions. The Board defers to the examiner’s discretion to determine whether in-person examination is required to render the requested opinion. 2. Obtain an addendum etiological opinion regarding whether the hypertension is: (a) caused or aggravated by the Veteran’s service, including herbicide agent exposure; or (b) proximately due to or aggravated by the Veteran’s service-connected diabetes mellitus; or (c) proximately due to or aggravated by the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD; or (d) proximately due to or aggravated by the Veteran’s service-connected medications. The examiner and AOJ are advised that the December 2020 VA opinion was inadequate because the examiner rendered unfavorable etiological opinions for both conditions by simply making conclusory statements without explanation as to why he reached those conclusions. The Board defers to the examiner’s discretion to determine whether in-person examination is required to render the requested opinion. 3. Readjudicate the appeal. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Daus, 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.