Citation Nr: 23040451
Decision Date: 07/24/23	Archive Date: 07/24/23

DOCKET NO. 17-48 697
DATE: July 24, 2023

REMANDED

Service connection for hypertension, including as due to in-service herbicide agent exposure, is remanded. 

Service connection for a stroke, including as due to hypertension, is remanded. 

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from May 1965 to February 1968, including in the Republic of Vietnam, and from July 1970 to January 1994.  

These matters were most recently before the Board in September 2021. The Board denied entitlement to service connection for a stroke, including as due to in-service herbicide agent exposure. The Board conceded herbicide agent exposure as the Veteran served in the Republic of Vietnam but found that the Veteran's stroke is not etiologically related to service nor any incident of service, including herbicide agent exposure. The Veteran appealed the September 2021 Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). 

In an November 2022 Order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), which recharacterized and remanded the issues of service connection for hypertension, including as due to in-service herbicide agent exposure, and service connection for a stroke secondary to the claimed hypertension. 

1. Service connection for hypertension, including as due to in-service herbicide agent exposure, is remanded.

In the November 2022 JMR, the parties agreed that information obtained during the pendency of the appeal reasonably indicated that the Veteran's hypertension may be associated with herbicide exposure and that the stroke may be proximately caused by or worsened beyond its natural progression by the hypertension. The parties explained that at the time of the Veteran's stroke in 2005, hypertension was listed in his medical history and as a potential risk factor for stroke in private treatment records. See October 2005 Private Treatment Records; see also November 2019 VA Examination (Hypertension is a risk factor for stroke); May 2020 VA Examination (Hypertension is a contributing factor to stroke). The Veteran also submitted medical literature linking hypertension to herbicide agent exposure. The parties requested that the issue be remanded for the Board's adjudication. 

After considering the November 2022 JMR, the Board finds that the issue of service connection for hypertension, including as due to in-service herbicide agent exposure, was reasonably raised by the record. A remand is required so that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) can adjudicate the claim in the first instance.

2. Service connection for a stroke, including as due to hypertension, is remanded.

In the November 2022 JMR, and as explained above, the parties agreed that information obtained during the pendency of the appeal reasonably indicates that the Veteran's stroke disorder may be secondary to the hypertension. 

The claim for service connection for a stroke, including as due to hypertension, is inextricably intertwined with the adjudication of the claim for service connection for hypertension, including as due to in-service herbicide agent exposure. See Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (issues are "inextricably intertwined" when a decision on one issue would have a "significant impact" on a veteran's claim for the second issue). As such, consideration of the issue must be deferred until the intertwined issue is either resolved or prepared for appellate consideration.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

After all available evidence has been associated with the record, the AOJ should review the evidence and determine if further development is warranted for the instant issues. The AOJ should take any additional development as deemed necessary. The AOJ should adjudicate the claim for service connection for hypertension, including as due to in-service herbicide agent exposure, and then adjudicate the claim of service connection for a stroke, including as due to hypertension.

 

 

David H. Robertson

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	D. Costantino, Associate 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.