Citation Nr: A25035203 Decision Date: 04/16/25 Archive Date: 04/16/25 DOCKET NO. 240201-413575 DATE: April 16, 2025 REMANDED Service connection for a lung condition, to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). ? REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1963 to December 1965. The case is on appeal from a January 2024 rating decision. In a February 2024 notice of disagreement (NOD), the Veteran selected the Direct Review option. Therefore, the Board has considered the evidence of record at the time of the January 2024 rating decision. Service connection for a lung condition, to include COPD. The Veteran is seeking service connection for a "lung condition." See June 2023 claim. For unapparent reasons, the RO separated the Veteran's claim into a claim of service connection for a lung condition and a claim of service connection for COPD. The Board has recharacterized the Veteran's appeal as one claim of service connection for a lung condition, to include COPD. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). This recharacterization does not preclude the Veteran from receiving service connection for multiple diagnoses. The Veteran contends that he has a lung condition related to hazardous exposures during service, to include exposure to herbicide agents. The Veteran's representative has requested that the claim be remanded for a new medical opinion. See January 2025 appellate brief. The Board notes that certain conditions, including COPD, have been determined by the Secretary to have no positive association with herbicide agents. See VBA Letter 20-24-06, Updated Guidance on Processing Claims Involving the PACT Act, at *12-13; 89 Fed. Reg. 51,224 (June 17, 2024). However, further development of the claim is nevertheless appropriate in order to determine whether the Veteran has a lung condition other than COPD related to herbicide agent exposure, or whether the Veteran's COPD is related to a toxic exposure risk activity (TERA) other than herbicide agent exposure. The Board must remand a claim to correct an error by the RO to satisfy its duty to assist the Veteran if the error occurred prior to the rating decision on appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(f)(2)(A); 38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a). VA has a duty to ensure the adequacy of its medical examinations and opinions. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). During an October 2023 VA examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with COPD. The examiner opined that the Veteran's COPD is not related to service. The examiner offered limited explanation for this conclusion and, crucially, did not address the Veteran's alleged exposure to "burning waste" while stationed in Korea nor his participation in Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives (CBRNE) training during service. See June 2023 claim; October 2023 statement. To this extent, the opinion is not wholly adequate, and the RO should have obtained a new opinion prior to its decision. See Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249, 254 (2020) (a medical opinion must discuss the pertinent facts of a claimant's case, including any relevant lay statements). The Board considered whether a July 2023 private medical opinion submitted by the Veteran is sufficient to grant the claim. However, as the opinion included no rationale in support of its conclusion, it is alone insufficient to grant the claim. See Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). Remand for a new medical opinion addressing the etiology of the Veteran's lung condition is therefore warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain a medical opinion from an appropriate VA examiner to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's lung condition. If an examination is deemed necessary, it shall be provided. The entire claims file, to include a copy of this remand, must be provided to the examiner and reviewed in full. The examiner must provide a medical opinion as to whether any lung condition, to include COPD, is at least as likely as not related to the Veteran's in-service TERA. When providing this opinion, the examiner must consider the total potential exposure through all applicable deployments and the synergistic, combined effect of all TERA of the Veteran. The examiner must include a well-reasoned rationale in support of the opinion offered and must address the Veteran's claimed exposure to burning waste and CBRNE training. If an intercurrent cause of the Veteran's disability is suspected, it should be identified, and any medical literature consulted should be cited. RYAN T. KESSEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Hayes, 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.