Citation Nr: 21027692
Decision Date: 05/06/21	Archive Date: 05/06/21

DOCKET NO. 14-28 964
DATE: May 6, 2021

REMANDED

The issue of entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded for additional development.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from January 1974 to April 1984, and in May 1992, with additional National Guard service.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Diego, California. 

In November 2017, the Veteran testified at a Board videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.  A transcript of the hearing is of record.

In February 2018 and November 2019, the Board remanded the issue of entitlement to service connection for hypertension for additional development.

Service Connection

The Veteran contends that service connection for hypertension is warranted because the clinical onset of that condition occurred during his active duty service.  The Veteran reported during the November 2017 Board hearing that he collapsed while operating a tank in service.  He reported that he was treated at a civilian hospital where treating clinicians attributed this medical episode to hypertension.

Pursuant to the November 2019 remand, the Veteran was afforded a VA hypertension examination in February 2021.  In rendering a negative nexus opinion, the examiner did not address the Veteran's elevated blood pressure readings in service, or the June 1995 report of medical history during his reserve service documenting reports of high blood pressure and prescribed anti-hypertensive medication, or the Veteran's contention that his collapse while operating a tank in service was a medical episode associated with hypertension, and provided a conclusory rationale.  See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007) (once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a service-connection claim, even if not statutorily obligated to do so, it must provide an adequate one or, at a minimum, notify the claimant why one will not or cannot be provided).

The matter is REMANDED for the following actions:

1. Provide the Veteran an opportunity to submit any lay statements or outstanding, relevant private treatment records.  Provide the Veteran with the appropriate authorization for release form(s).  Specifically, please seek to obtain private treatment records regarding the Veteran's reported "collapse" while operating a tank in service.  See November 2017 Hearing Transcript at 9-10.

2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of his hypertension.  The clinician should review the Veteran's entire claims file and any relevant studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary should be performed. Thereafter, the clinician should then address: 

(a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that the Veteran's hypertension had its onset during, or is otherwise related to, his active service?  Please comment on the Veteran's contentions that his collapse while operating a tank in service was a result of hypertension, the Veteran's elevated blood pressure readings in his service treatment records, and the June 1995 report of medical history during his reserve service documenting reports of high blood pressure and prescribed anti-hypertensive medication.

 

 

S.C. Krembs

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	M. Bilstein, 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.