Citation Nr: 21032566 Decision Date: 05/27/21 Archive Date: 05/27/21 DOCKET NO. 16-13 280 DATE: May 27, 2021 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for a lung disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active duty service in the United States Navy from September 1973 to October 1976. In July 2020, the Board remanded the case for additional development. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a lung disorder is remanded. The Board notes that a remand by the Board confers upon the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand instructions, and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In June 2020, the Board remanded the claim and instructed the AOJ to obtain a VA medical opinion that considered the Veteran's exposure to various chemicals during service, including his exposure to primer, paint, fiberglass, sandblasting material, fuel fire, asbestos, and contaminants. Pursuant to the Board remand, a VA medical opinion was provided in September 2020. The examiner opined that the Veteran's emphysema was less likely than not related to service. The rationale was that the Veteran's service treatment records were silent as to any complaints or diagnosis of a lung disorder and that the chest x-rays during service were within normal limits. The examiner noted that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of asbestosis. It was also noted that the Veteran smoked cigars weekly from 2005 to 2010 making smoking a more likely risk factor for his emphysema. The Board finds that a remand is required to obtain the VA opinion. See Stegall, 11 Vet. App. 268 at 271. Specifically, it does not appear that the VA examiner fully considered the Veteran's exposure to various chemicals during service. Additionally, the examiner did not explain why the Veteran's emphysema was more likely related to him smoking cigars once per week for five years, instead of his in-service exposure to various chemicals. Also, the examiner supported his medical opinion by noting that the Veteran's chest x-rays were normal during service. The Board notes that the examination report indicated that a recent chest x-ray was within normal limits. The examiner did not explain the relevance of the normal chest x-ray findings both during service and after service. Accordingly, a remand is required to obtain another medical opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should undertake appropriate development to obtain any outstanding records pertinent to the Veteran's claims. If any requested records are not available, the record should be annotated to reflect such, and the Veteran notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (e). 2. Then, the AOJ should obtain a VA medical opinion by a physician(s) with sufficient expertise to determine the nature and etiology of his lung disorder. All pertinent evidence of record must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Another examination of the Veteran should only be performed if deemed necessary by the person providing the opinion. Following a review of the relevant records and lay statements, the examiner must provide an opinion as to the whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater degree of probability) that the Veteran's lung disorder began in or is otherwise related to the Veteran's active duty service, to specifically include his exposure to asbestos, primer, pain, fiberglass, sandblasting material, fuel fire, and contaminants at the Philadelphia and Norfolk naval shipyards. In so opining, the examiner must consider and discuss the following: (1) the in-service and post-service chest x-rays showing normal findings; (2) the Veteran's claimed in-service exposures; (3) the Veteran's report that he smoked cigars once per week for five years from 2005 to 2010. The rationale for all opinions expressed must also be provided. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. (Continued on the next page) 3. Then, the AOJ should readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and be afforded the requisite opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate action. Hannah Fisher Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. McKinley, 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.