Citation Nr: 21028226 Decision Date: 05/10/21 Archive Date: 05/10/21 DOCKET NO. 18-34 146A DATE: May 10, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence having been received, the previously denied claim for service connection for Barrett's esophagus is reopened. REMANDED Service connection for Barrett's esophagus is remanded. Service connection for Parkinson's disease is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. An unappealed February 2005 rating decision denied service connection for a Barrett's esophagus. 2. The evidence associated with the file since the February 2005 rating decision includes evidence that relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim, is neither cumulative nor redundant of evidence already of record, and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim for service connection for Barrett's esophagus. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The February 2005 rating decision that denied service connection for Barrett's esophagus is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 20.302, 20.1103. 2. The evidence received since the February 2005 rating decision is new and material evidence and serves to reopen the Veteran's claim for service connection for Barrett's esophagus. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from September 1959 to May 1963 and from August 1990 to October 1991. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 2016 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) rating decision. New and Material Evidence Where a claim has been finally adjudicated, new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the previously denied claim is required. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a). New evidence is evidence not previously received by agency decision makers. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a). Material evidence is evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. Id. New and material evidence cannot be either cumulative or redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. Id. For the purposes of reopening a claim, newly received evidence is generally presumed to be credible. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). New and material evidence is not required as to each previously unproven element of a claim in order to reopen. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 120 (2010). There is a low threshold for determining whether the new evidence raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating a claim. Id. at 117-18. Even where the RO has reopened and adjudicated a claim on the merits, the Board must consider the question of whether new and material evidence has been received sufficient to reopen the previously denied claim without regard to the RO's decision. This is necessary to establish the Board's jurisdiction to address the underlying claim and to adjudicate the claim de novo. Jackson v. Principi, 265 F. 3d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Barnett v. Brown, 83 F. 3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1996). A February 2005 rating decision denied service connection for Barrett's esophagus. At that time, the RO determined that service medical records did not show treatment or a diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus within the periods of verified military active duty. In the year following the February 2005 rating decision, the Veteran did not submit any statements expressing disagreement with the denial of service connection for Barrett's esophagus, nor did he submit any documents concerning the claim for service connection for Barrett's esophagus that could be considered new and material evidence. The Veteran also did not assert that there was clear and unmistakable error. Therefore, the February 2005 rating decision is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.302, 20.1103. Evidence added to the record since the prior final February 2005 rating decision includes the Veteran's lay statements and contentions, he submitted in his November 2015 Notice of Disagreement (NOD) detailing the circumstances surrounding his Barrett's esophagus condition. Specifically, the Veteran contends that his Barrett's esophagus condition is related to airborne pollutants and sand. He states that he first experienced pain upon return from deployment in the United Arab Emirates during his Air National Guard active service for Desert Shield/Desert Storm. This evidence, presumed as credible for new and material purposes, relates to an element of the Veteran's claim which was not met when the claim was last denied in February 2005. Thus, this evidence is neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim for service connection for Barrett's esophagus. Thus, this claim is reopened. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran contends that his Barrett's esophagus and Parkinson's disease are a result of airborne pollutants and sand experienced upon his return from deployment to the United Arab Emirates and, exposure to insecticides while in active service, respectively. See April 2016 Notice of Disagreement (NOD). Medical records indicate the Veteran was diagnosed with GERD in February 1994 and Barrett's esophagus in March 1996. Likewise, medical records also indicate that the Veteran was diagnosed with Parkinson's in February 2014. To date, no VA examination has been conducted to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's Barrett's esophagus and Parkinson's disease. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his Barrett's esophagus with GERD, gastritis, gastric polyps, and hiatal hernia. The entire claims file, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to, and be reviewed by, the examiner, and such should be indicated on the examination report. Any testing deemed necessary should be conducted, and the results thereof should be noted in the examination report. After a review of the claims folder, as well as an interview with, and an examination of the Veteran, the examiner is asked to provide the following opinion: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., at least a 50 percent probability or greater) that the diagnosed Barrett's esophagus with GERD, gastritis, gastric polyps, and hiatal hernia onset in, or is otherwise related to, the Veteran's service or any incident therein, to include his reported in-service exposure to trichloroethene and MEK when cleaning radios and radars for aircrafts and pyrethrum when cleaning aircrafts in the 1960s and 1970s, and insecticide (permethrin) as well as other chemicals listed in his October 2019 statement, airborne pollutants, and sand while stationed in the Persian Gulf. 2. Additionally, schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's Parkinson's disease. Any testing deemed necessary should be conducted, and the results thereof should be noted in the examination report. After a review of the claims folder, as well as an interview with, and an examination of the Veteran, the examiner is asked to provide the following opinion: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., at least a 50 percent probability or greater) that the diagnosed Parkinson's disease onset in, or is otherwise related to, the Veteran's service or any incident therein, to include his reported in-service exposure to trichloroethene and MEK when cleaning radios and radars for aircrafts and pyrethrum when cleaning aircrafts in the 1960s and 1970s, and insecticide (permethrin) as well as other chemicals listed in his October 2019 statement, while stationed in the Persian Gulf. In providing these requested opinions, the examiners are advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history and that such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating all opinions. A clear explanation for all opinions would be helpful, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. If any examiner is unable to provide an opinion, he or she should explain why. R. Erdheim Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. R. Bobb, Associate 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.