Citation Nr: 21030951
Decision Date: 05/20/21	Archive Date: 05/20/21

DOCKET NO. 13-30 633
DATE: May 20, 2021

REMANDED

Service connection for hysterectomy is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran had honorable active duty service from April 2001 to July 2004.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from    a May 2010 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A transcript of the Veteran's testimony at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in October 2016 is of record. The Board sought an expert medical opinion in October 2017. In a January 2019 decision, the Board granted service connection for uterine ablation and remanded the claim for service connection for hysterectomy. Service connection for hysterectomy was denied by the Board in April 2020.

The Veteran appealed the Board's April 2020 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a January 2021 Joint Motion for Remand, the parties requested that the Court vacate the April 2020 Board decision. In a January 2021 Order, the Court granted the Joint Motion.

 

1. Service connection for hysterectomy is remanded.

The April 2021 Board decision clearly acknowledged that it remanded the claim in January 2019 to obtain an opinion from a toxicologist or specialist in environmental medicine and that there was no indication that the July 2019 opinion was provided by such expert. The Board determined that there was substantial compliance with its remand directive because the July 2019 VA opinion was provided by an internist, who possesses a broad range of medical knowledge, and because it was thorough and cited to current medical literature. The Board concluded that remand was not needed for strict compliance with the prior remand directive and noted that neither the Veteran nor her representative had challenged the adequacy of the opinion or the competence of the physician. 

Despite these findings, the Joint Motion determined that the Board erred in relying   on this opinion because it had not been provided by a toxicologist or specialist in environmental medicine and that remand was needed for VA to obtain an examination or addendum opinion that substantially complies with the terms of the January 2019 remand order.

This matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1. Send the claims file to a toxicologist or specialist in environmental medicine (as required by the Court) for a medical opinion as to whether it is more likely (greater than 50 percent probability), less likely (less than 50 percent probability), or at least as likely as not (50/50 probability) that the Veteran's gynecological condition resulting in hysterectomy is a maturation or continuation of the gynecological complaints in service or is otherwise etiologically related to service, to include as a result of her exposure to chemicals/fuels while working as an aircraft fuel systems journeyman. Please explain the reasoning for the opinion provided. 

2. If the claim remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case. 

 

K. A. BANFIELD

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	D. Van Wambeke, 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.