Citation Nr: 21039716 Decision Date: 07/01/21 Archive Date: 07/01/21 DOCKET NO. 14-23 264 DATE: July 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an upper back disability, to include as due to in-service exposure to electromagnetic fields (to include high voltage power lines and high frequency radios), is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for chronic fatigue, to include as due to in-service exposure to electromagnetic fields (to include high voltage power lines and high frequency radios), is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea, to include as due to in-service exposure to electromagnetic fields (to include high voltage power lines and high frequency radios), is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of Guillain-Barre Syndrome, to include as due to in-service exposure to electromagnetic fields (to include high voltage power lines and high frequency radios), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1947 to July 1949. This matter comes before the Board on appeal from a June 2012 Regional Office (RO) rating decision. In May 2015, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. These claims were previously denied by the Board in September 2015. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) which, by order dated April 2017, granted a Joint Motion for Remand, vacated the Board's decision, and remanded the matter for compliance with the instructions in the Joint Motion. In October 2017, the Board remanded these claims for additional development, and the case was returned to the Board for further review. These claims were subsequently denied by the Board in an August 2019 decision. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the Court which, by order dated February 2021, granted a January 2021 Joint Motion for Remand, vacated the Board's decision, and remanded the matter for compliance with the instructions in the Joint Motion. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an upper back disability, to include as due to in-service exposure to electromagnetic fields (to include high voltage power lines and high frequency radios), is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for chronic fatigue, to include as due to in-service exposure to electromagnetic fields (to include high voltage power lines and high frequency radios), is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea, to include as due to in-service exposure to electromagnetic fields (to include high voltage power lines and high frequency radios), is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of Guillain-Barre Syndrome, to include as due to in-service exposure to electromagnetic fields (to include high voltage power lines and high frequency radios), is remanded. The Joint Motion determined that remand was necessary because the Board failed to obtain the Veteran's complete records from the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Joint Motion noted that "The record also indicates that Appellant was seen at that facility as early as 1995," but that "the record now before the Court contains records from the Minneapolis VA Medical Center dating no earlier than 2007." The Board will thus remand to attempt to obtain these records. The Joint Motion also notes that "the record contains evidence that Appellant received treatment at the Augustana Chapel View Care Center," but no attempts have been made to obtain these records. On remand, the Board will attempt to obtain any records from Augustana Chapel View Care Center that have not been associated with the claims file. (The Board notes that, in April 2021, following the Joint Motion, the Veteran has submitted some records from this facility. It is unclear whether there are any other outstanding records from this facility.) The Joint Motion also determined there was a deficiency in the March 2019 VA examination report that must be addressed. The Joint Motion noted that "the medical examiner noted that in October 2006 Appellant had been diagnosed with moderate to severe sleep obstructive apnea, based on a sleep study." The Joint Motion notes that "The examiner also noted that Appellant underwent a sleep study in April 2016, which was negative for sleep apnea." The examiner noted "that Appellant did not currently have any finding, signs, or symptoms attributable to sleep apnea" and determined that no current diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea was warranted. The Joint Motion objected that "the examiner did not discuss how he concluded that Appellant did not have a current diagnosis of sleep apnea, particularly in light of Appellant's 2006 diagnosis of moderate to severe sleep apnea." On remand, a new opinion should be obtained that addresses this deficiency. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all relevant VA and private treatment records not currently associated with the claims file, to include any VA medical records that were created since the Veteran's records were last obtained. Specifically: (a) Take all appropriate steps to obtain records from the Minneapolis VAMC between 1995 and 2007. (If any records prior to 1995 are found, these, too, should be associated with the claims file.) Notify the Veteran if any such records are unavailable. (b) Ask the Veteran to fill out the appropriate authorization to allow VA to obtain treatment records from Augustana Chapel View Care Center. Notify the Veteran that he may submit these records himself. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion to the March 2019 VA sleep apnea examination report from a qualified examiner with respect to whether the Veteran has a current diagnosis of sleep apnea and whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that any such disability is related to service, to include his exposure to electromagnetic fields (to include high voltage power lines and high frequency radios). The examiner should review the claims file and should determine whether a current sleep apnea diagnosis is warranted. In doing so, the examiner must address: (a) The October 2006 sleep study from the University of Minnesota that notes a physician's interpretation that this sleep study "is suggestive of moderately severe sleep apnea," (b) The April 2016 VA sleep study that was negative for sleep apnea, and (c) The March 2019 VA sleep apnea examination report's determination that no current sleep apnea diagnosis is warranted. Any opinion must contain a complete rationale that includes discussion of the facts of the case and pertinent medical principles. If the VA examiner is unable to offer an opinion without resorting to speculation, a thorough explanation as to why an opinion cannot be rendered should be provided. TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Elizabeth Jalley, 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.