Citation Nr: 21029163 Decision Date: 05/12/21 Archive Date: 05/12/21 DOCKET NO. 16-36 557 DATE: May 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from March 1970 to November 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2015 rating decision. This matter was previously before the Board in April 2019. Service connection for hepatitis C The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C because no VA examiner has opined whether the genotype of the Veteran's hepatitis C virus (genotype 3a) indicates that it was at least as likely as not contracted while serving in the Republic of Vietnam as the Veteran asserts that it does. The Board's prior remand (dated in April 2019) instructed the examiner to opine as to whether "it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or better probability) that the Veteran's hepatitis C had its onset in, or is otherwise related to, his service, to include in-service herbicide exposure." The report of the subsequent November 2019 VA examination was returned for a clarifying opinion, which was provided in July 2020. According to the report of the July 2020 VA addendum opinion, the Veteran failed to provide a response as to his purported hepatitis C risk factors. To the extent that such information would be helpful to a VA clinician rendering an etiology opinion as to the Veteran's hepatitis C, the Board hereby informs the Veteran that VA's duty to assist is not a one-way street. If a veteran wishes help, he or she cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he or she may or should have information that is essential in obtaining the relevant evidence. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991); Hayes v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 60, 68 (1993). VA's duty must be understood as a duty to assist a veteran in developing his or her claim, rather than a duty on the part of VA to develop the entire claim with the veteran performing only a passive role. Turk v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 565, 568 (2008). As such, the Veteran must make reasonable efforts to assist VA in determining the nature and etiology of his hepatitis C on VA examination, to include responding to requests for information regarding his hepatitis C risk factors. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an appropriate clinician regarding whether the genotype of the Veteran's hepatitis C virus (purportedly genotype 3a). The examiner should review the Veteran's claims folder in conjunction with the examination. On examination, the examiner should obtain from the Veteran information as to his hepatitis C risk factors. Following this interview, completion of any testing deemed necessary, and completion of an examination, the examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran contracted this virus while serving in the Republic of Vietnam. A complete rationale must be provided for this opinion. 2. Once the development requested above, along with any additional development that may be indicated as a result, is completed, readjudicate the claim on appeal. If the claim is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, provide the Veteran and his representative with an appropriate supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and the requisite time to respond. Then, if the matter is otherwise in order, return the claim to the Board for further appellate review. No action is required of the Veteran until he is notified by VA. However, he is advised of his obligation to cooperate in ensuring the duty to assist is satisfied. Kowalski v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 171 (2005). His failure to report for a VA medical examination may impact determinations made. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. The Veteran also is advised that he has the right to submit additional evidence and argument with respect to these matters. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This appeal must be afforded prompt treatment. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Steven H. Johnston, 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.