Citation Nr: 21027383 Decision Date: 05/05/21 Archive Date: 05/05/21 DOCKET NO. 18-41 318 DATE: May 5, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for colon cancer with twelve inches removed, with residual painful adhesions, to include as due to exposure to ionizing radiation, is remanded. Service connection for lung cancer, to include as secondary to colon cancer, is remanded. Service connection for nerve damage, chest, to include as secondary to colon cancer, is remanded. Service connection for acid reflux, to include as secondary to colon cancer, is remanded. Service connection for memory loss, to include as secondary to colon cancer, is remanded. Service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to colon cancer, is remanded. Service connection for hypogonadism (also claimed as low testosterone), to include as secondary to colon cancer, is remanded. Service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, to include as secondary to colon cancer, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty, including from August 1982 to May 1986. This matter was last before the Board in November 2019, when the Board issued a decision denying all eight service connection claims listed above. Following the Veteran's appeal of that decision, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) promulgated an August 2020 Joint Motion vacating the Board's prior decision and remanding all eight claimed issues back to Board for its adjudication. As a reminder, the Veteran testified at an August 2019 hearing before one of the Veterans Law Judges who are signatories to this decision. Subsequent to the issuance of the Court's August 2020 Joint Motion, the Veteran in a September 2020 correspondence requested a new hearing before a Veterans Law Judge in order to present additional testimony in support of his claim. That hearing was held in February 2021 before another one of the Veterans Law Judges who is a signatory to this decision. Where, as here, a Veteran presents testimony before two different sitting Veterans Law Judges, he or she has the opportunity to testify before a third judge prior to adjudication of his or her claim. See Arneson v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 379 (2011). The Veteran waived his opportunity to appear before a third Veterans Law Judge during the February 2021 hearing. Therefore, the Board will proceed with adjudication of the claim undertaken by a three-judge panel. Id. Copies of the transcripts of the August 2019 and February 2021 videoconference hearing testimony are each of record. The Court in its August 2020 Joint Motion highlighted the fact that the Veteran in a May 2019 correspondence requested information pertaining to the qualifications of the VA medical professional who administered the November 2017 VA examination and opinion relied upon by the Board in its November 2019 decision. The Court further noted that the Board did not take any steps to attempt to acquire this qualification information, and noted that pursuant to its precedential decision in Francway v. Wilkie, 930 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2019), VA's duty to assist extends to obtaining information regarding the qualifications of individual who administer examinations pertinent to the issues on appeal. As such, the Court vacated the Board's November 2019 decision and directed the Board to take action consistent with these duty to assist deficiencies, to specifically include further remanding the case to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in order to obtain any and all available information regarding the qualifications of the VA medical professional who administered the November 2017 VA examination. Accordingly, the Board is remanding all issues on appeal and directs the AOJ to obtain, to the extent possible, a copy of the curriculum vitae for the November 2017 VA examiner as well as any and all known qualifications for this individual. Once obtained, any such qualification information must be associated with the record and provided to the Veteran and his representative for review. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Appropriate action must be taken to respond to the requests from the representative for copies of the curriculum vitae and other credentialing documents for the VA examiner who conducted the November 2017 VA Gulf War examination. After obtaining this credentialing documentation, associate it with the record and provide the Veteran and his representative a copy thereof. If the requested curriculum vitae and other credentialing documentation is not obtainable, the Veteran and his representative should be notified, and the reasons for such should be documented in the record before any further adjudication of this case. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Christopher M. Collins, 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.