Citation Nr: 22017647
Decision Date: 03/25/22	Archive Date: 03/25/22

DOCKET NO. 13-18 773
DATE: March 25, 2022

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for a cardiovascular disorder, to include as due to in service exposure to tactical herbicide agents or as secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II (diabetes) is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran had active service from January 1966 to December 1968, with service in the Republic of Vietnam.

This matter has previously been denied by the Board and appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) which remanded this matter to the Board pursuant to a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (Joint Motion) in November 2020.  This matter was most recently before the Board in May 2021.

Unfortunately, the December 2021 VA opinion is inadequate.  The examiner was asked to provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran's ischemic or non-ischemic heart condition was at least as likely as not (1) caused by his active service, to include in service exposure to tactical herbicide agents, or (2) caused or aggravated by his service-connected diabetes.  However, the resulting opinion does not adequately address his non-ischemic heart conditionand simply says that the Veteran's heart condition is not ischemic and not directly related to his service-connected conditions and not related to prior service. Significantly, the opinion provides no rationale beyond that.  Consequently, this matter must be remanded for clarification.

Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the following actions:

1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician as to whether the Veteran's ischemic or non-ischemic (whichever is indicated by the evidence) was caused by his service, to include his conceded in-service exposure to tactical herbicide agents. Alternatively, the clinician should opine whether the Veteran's ischemic or non-ischemic heart condition was either caused or aggravated (worsened to any extent) by his service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II.  The requested opinion must be supported by an adequate rationale.

2. After the above development, and any other indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issue on appeal.  If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond.  If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. 

 

THERESA M. CATINO

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Steven H. Johnston, 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.