Citation Nr: 21040654 Decision Date: 07/06/21 Archive Date: 07/06/21 DOCKET NO. 20-01 710 DATE: July 6, 2021 REMANDED The issue of service connection for a renal disorder secondary to diabetes mellitus type II (DM) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from January 1957 to November 1960 and from November 1960 to January 1977. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) has determined that additional development is necessary and the matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. BACKGROUND FOR THE RO ADJUDICATOR: The Board denied service connection for a renal disorder in a July 2020 decision. The Veteran appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) and the Court vacated the denial pursuant to a March 2021 joint motion for partial remand (JMPR). The Veteran limited his appeal to service connection for a renal disorder secondary to DM. The Court remanded the claim to the Board and directed it to consider private medical records suggesting a link between the Veteran's renal disorder and his service-connected DM. Remand is necessary for an addendum medical opinion in order to fully develop the Veteran's theory of entitlement and to comply with the parties' JMPR. 2. REMAND DIRECTIVES: Return the file to the May 2016 VA examiner and request an addendum opinion responding to the questions below. If she is unavailable, obtain an opinion from a VA PHYSICIAN QUALIFIED TO DIAGNOSE RENAL DISEASES AND GIVE AN OPINION AS TO THEIR CAUSE. The examiner must give a thorough explanation for all opinions provided. The examiner is requested to give the following opinions: (a.) Was the Veteran's renal disorder caused by his service-connected DM? (b.) Was the Veteran's renal disorder aggravated beyond its normal progression by his service-connected DM? i. If aggravation is found, the examiner must establish the pre-aggravation baseline level of severity of the Veteran's renal disorder. If the examiner is unable to establish a baseline, he must explain why. In addition to the entire claim file, the examiner is requested to review: *January 2014 medical record noting "RECK kidneys", elevated creatinine, and ongoing problems with benign prostrating hyperplasia (BPH). See "Medical Treatment Record Non-Government Facility," received May 7, 2020 at page 45 of 62. *February 2014 medical record noting renal insufficiency, elevated creatinine. Imaging revealed a cyst in the right kidney and partially decompressed bladder. The clinician noted suspected prostatic enlargement. See "Medical Treatment Record Non-Government Facility," received May 7, 2020 at page 56 of 78. *May 2019 and December 2019 medical records noting history of chronic kidney disease stage III (CKD) secondary to hypertension and DM. See "Medical Treatment Record Non-Government Facility," received April 28, 2020. *February 2020 medical record noting the Veteran was "seeing nephrology because of renal damage from his diabetes." See "Medical Treatment Record Non-Government Facility," received April 28, 2020, at page 11 of 79. *March 2020 hearing testimony where Veteran reported being treated for renal problems that were possibly related to his diabetes. See "Hearing Transcript," received March 18, 2020, at pages 10-11 of 20. *March 12, 2020 statement by a medical provider that the Veteran was treated for DM, neuropathy and nephropathy for six years. See "Medical Treatment Record Non-Government Facility," received April 2, 2020. *Private medical records dated March and April 2020 noting "DM with other diabetic kidney complication," "hypertensive CKD," or "unspecified CKD." See "Medical Treatment Record Non-Government Facility," received May 7, 2020 at pages 6, 10 of 71. If the RO continues to deny the claims, it should issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and give the Veteran and his representative a reasonable opportunity to respond to the SSOC before returning the appeal to the Board. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Hiaasen The Board's decision is only binding on this case. This action is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.