Citation Nr: 21039863 Decision Date: 07/01/21 Archive Date: 07/01/21 DOCKET NO. 08-26 455A REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disability, claimed as asthma is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Coast Guard from October 1973 to October 1978. The Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for asthma has been remanded on several occasions. Most recently, the case was remanded in December 2020. In January 2021, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and included the issue of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual employability (TDIU). However, the issue of entitlement to a TDIU is not on appeal. The Board finds that the inclusion of entitlement to a TDIU in the January 2021 SSOC was an error and this issue is not currently before the Board on appeal. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disability, claimed as asthma is remanded. In the December 2020 Remand, the Board noted that a January 2014 examination had been determined to be inadequate in the prior January 2018 Remand. Moreover, it was determined that a more recent June 2018 VA opinion was also inadequate. The Board remanded the Veteran's claim again, in December 2020, for a new etiological opinion. The opinion was to specifically consider the Veteran's in-service complaints of shortness of breath. A January 2021 opinion was obtained, with addendum opinion. The Board finds that the January 2021 opinions are generally inadequate. In an initial opinion dated January 15, 2021, the examiner opined that it was less likely as not that the claimed condition was incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event or illness. The examiner specifically noted that there were no service treatment records or physical exams made available to review. The examiner simply rationalized that based on the records she did review, a negative opinion was warranted. The Board finds this rationale insufficient and little probative value can be accorded to this medical opinion. In an addendum opinion completed on January 27, 2021, the same examiner again provided a negative opinion. She stated that there were no service treatment records or veteran's statements in the record to review. She also noted that there were no records proximate to service to review. Although the VA examiner considered that it was noted in the remand that shortness of breath had been reported in service in March and May 1978, the examiner noted that there were no records to review. She also noted other records were not available for review. Once again, her negative opinion was supported by insufficient rationale. The Board finds that the January 2021 opinions are inadequate to adjudicate the Veteran's claim. Therefore, the Board finds that an additional remand is warranted to obtain an addendum medical opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Request an addendum medical opinion by a different examiner than the one that provided the January 2021 opinions, who has the appropriate training and expertise to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's respiratory disability. Following review of the claims file, the examiner should address the following question: Whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., there is at least a 50% probability) that any respiratory disability, claimed as asthma, had its clinical onset during the Veteran's active duty service or is otherwise etiologically related to his active service. Any opinions offered should be accompanied by a clear rationale consistent with the evidence of record. If the examiner finds it impossible to provide any part of the requested opinions without resort to pure speculation, he or she should so indicate and provide a rationale as to why such a finding is made. 2. After completing all indicated development, the Veteran's claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the Veteran and his attorney should be provided a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and afforded the requisite opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board. ROBERT C. SCHARNBERGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. M. Clark, 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.