Citation Nr: 21032444 Decision Date: 05/27/21 Archive Date: 05/27/21 DOCKET NO. 17-02 145 DATE: May 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for benign prostate hypertrophy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ankle disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinea pedis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for neuropathy of any extremity is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for glaucoma and cataracts is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a total rating based on individual employability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from January 1960 to March 1962. This matter is on appeal from a March 2016 rating decision. The case was remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in March 2018, and then denied in an August 2019 decision. The Veteran thereafter appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an October 2020 Memorandum Decision, the Court vacated the Board's decision as to the issues listed above and remanded the case for readjudication. The Board's denial also included the issue of service connection for diabetes mellitus. The Court affirmed that part of the Board decision, and that issue is not on appeal. 1. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for benign prostate hypertrophy is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disorder is remanded. 6. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip disorder is remanded. 7. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disorder is remanded. 8. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ankle disorder is remanded. 9. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinea pedis is remanded. 10. Entitlement to service connection for neuropathy of any extremity is remanded. 11. Entitlement to service connection for glaucoma and cataracts is remanded. 12. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issues of service connection for the claimed disorders, because no adequate VA examination has been provided to the Veteran. As noted in the October 2020 Memorandum Decision, the Board's March 2018 remand instructed the examiners to "specifically consider" the Veteran's work as a combat engineer. Since the opinions obtained did not consider the Veteran's work as a combat engineer, a remand is necessary to obtain new opinions. 13. Entitlement TDIU is remanded. Since decisions in the remaining issues on appeal could impact the Veteran's claim for entitlement to TDIU, it must also be remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. In accordance with the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1), make efforts to obtain all records identified by the Veteran, including any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. Obtain addendum medical opinions from the November 2018 VA hypertension, heart conditions, male reproductive system conditions, neck conditions, back conditions, hip and thigh conditions, knee and lower leg conditions, ankle conditions, skin diseases, and eye conditions examiners (or, if unavailable, from medical professionals with appropriate expertise) to determine the etiology of the diagnosed hypertension, heart disorder, benign prostate hypertrophy, cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral hip, bilateral knee, bilateral ankle, bilateral tinea pedis, and glaucoma and cataracts disorders. The examiners are requested to review the record and offer opinions as to the following: a) whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of approximately 50 percent) that the diagnosed hypertension and heart disorder are related to the Veteran's military service. b) whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of approximately 50 percent) that the diagnosed benign prostate hypertrophy is related to the Veteran's military service. c) whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of approximately 50 percent) that the diagnosed cervical spine disorder is related to the Veteran's military service. d) whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of approximately 50 percent) that the diagnosed lumbar spine disorder is related to the Veteran's military service. e) whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of approximately 50 percent) that the diagnosed bilateral hip disorders are related to the Veteran's military service. f) whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of approximately 50 percent) that the diagnosed bilateral knee disorders are related to the Veteran's military service. g) whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of approximately 50 percent) that the diagnosed bilateral ankle disorders are related to the Veteran's military service. h) whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of approximately 50 percent) that the diagnosed bilateral tinea pedis is related to the Veteran's military service. i) whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of approximately 50 percent) that the diagnosed glaucoma and cataracts are related to the Veteran's military service. The examiners must specifically consider the Veteran's military occupational specialty as a combat engineer, his recollections of any event, injury or disease incurred in service, and Dr. M-Q's June 2015 opinion. A complete rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the etiology of any diagnosed neuropathy of any extremity. The most up-to-date Disability Benefits Questionnaire should be utilized. The Board recognizes the practical difficulties of scheduling an examination in view of the COVID-19 epidemic, and requests flexibility and understanding in affording the Veteran an opportunity to report for an examination. For any neuropathy diagnosed, the examiner is requested to review the record and offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of approximately 50 percent) that any diagnoses are related to the Veteran's military service. The examiner must specifically consider the Veteran's military occupational specialty as a combat engineer, his recollections of any event, injury or disease incurred in service, and Dr. M-Q's June 2015 opinion. A complete rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. 4. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the etiology of any diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorder. The most up-to-date Disability Benefits Questionnaire should be utilized. The Board recognizes the practical difficulties of scheduling an examination in view of the COVID-19 epidemic, and requests flexibility and understanding in affording the Veteran an opportunity to report for an examination. For any acquired psychiatric disorder diagnosed, the examiner is requested to review the record and offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of approximately 50 percent) that any diagnoses are related to the Veteran's military service. The examiner must specifically consider the Veteran's military occupational specialty as a combat engineer, his recollections of any event, injury or disease incurred in service, and Dr. M-Q's June 2015 opinion. A complete rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Barstow, 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.