07-05 817

CourtBoard of Veterans' Appeals
DecidedAugust 22, 2018
Docket07-05 817
StatusUnpublished

This text of 07-05 817 (07-05 817) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Board of Veterans' Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
07-05 817, (bva 2018).

Opinion

Citation Nr: 1829807 Decision Date: 08/22/18 Archive Date: 08/30/18

DOCKET NO. 07-05 817 ) DATE ) )

On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina

THE ISSUE

1. Entitlement to service connection for pinched nerves.

2. Entitlement to service connection for headaches.

3. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

4. Entitlement to a rating higher than 20 percent for hepatitis C.

5. Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 70 percent for PTSD with alcohol use disorder.

6. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for right ear hearing loss.

7. Entitlement to an effective date prior to June 14, 2004, for the grant of service connection for PTSD with alcohol use disorder.

8. Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 30, 2005, for the grant of service connection for right ear hearing loss.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Jeany Mark, Attorney at Law

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. Davitian, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from February 1969 to October 1970, with service in the Republic of Vietnam.

These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston Salem, North Carolina.

In July 2009, the Veteran testified during a videoconference hearing before an acting Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing is of record. The Veteran was notified in June 2015 that the acting Veterans Law Judge who conducted his hearing is no longer employed by the Board, and he therefore had the right to an additional hearing before a different Veterans Law Judge. The Veteran did not submit a motion for a new hearing.

The claim for service connection for pinched nerves was denied by the Board, most recently in a September 2015 decision. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), and in August 2016, pursuant to a Joint Motion for Partial Remand, the Court vacated and remanded the matter.

The appeal is REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). VA will notify the appellant if further action is required.

REMAND

Because the development requested in the February 2017 remand has not been complied with and previous medical opinions are inadequate, another remand is necessary. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998).

In September 2017 the Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-4142a giving consent to obtain records from Dr. James Skeen, MD. However, the record reflects that in October 2017, VA requested records from Dr. James Skoem, MD. That request was returned to VA, with a notation that it was not deliverable as addressed and could not be forwarded. Another request must be made to the appropriate physician.

A private medical opinion submitted in March 2018, which includes positive nexus opinions on the claims of service connection pinched nerves, headaches and hypertension, is not sufficient to grant the claims. The opinion provider does not indicate what records were reviewed prior to making the statement (specifically, whether service treatment records were available for review) and includes speculative language. The provider also opines that the Veteran's headaches and hypertension are likely related to herbicide exposure and the service-connected PTSD and he also raises theories of entitlement that have not been raised considered. Medical opinions obtained on remand should address all theories.

The private medical opinion cites a medical article it describes as demonstrating at least partial cause and effect between PTSD and hypertension. The private medical opinion also relates that a study presented at the 2017 American Academy of Neurology annual meeting indicates that headaches may be correlated with the severity of PTSD in certain patients. The private medical opinion concludes that the Veteran's hypertension and chronic headaches should be considered as likely as not service related.

VA's own statements in connection with its rulemaking authority support an association between hypertension and PTSD. VA has found that a presumption of service connection is warranted for hypertensive vascular disease for prisoners of war (POWs). This presumption is based on several medical studies indicating that veterans who have a long-term history of PTSD have a high risk of developing cardiovascular disease and myocardial infarction. See Presumptions of Service Connection for Diseases Associated With Service Involving Detention or Internment as a Prisoner of War, 70 Fed. Reg. 37040 June 28, 2005); Presumptions of Service Connection for Diseases Associated With Service Involving Detention or Internment as a Prisoner of War, 69 Fed. Reg. 60083 (Oct. 7, 2004). The opinion obtained on remand must consider this.

Although hypertension is not a disability presumptively associated with herbicide exposure (see 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e) (2016)), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has placed hypertension in the category of "limited or suggestive evidence of an association" with exposure to herbicides. See Determinations Concerning Illnesses Discussed in National Academy of Sciences Report: Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2010, 77 Fed. Reg. 47,924, 47,926 (Aug. 10, 2012). The opinion obtained on remand must consider this.

Since the issues on appeal are being remanded for development, the Veteran's eFolders should be updated to include any outstanding VA treatment records. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(2); see also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992).

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain and associate with the Veteran's eFolders copies of any and all outstanding VA treatment records.

2. Request that the Veteran submit a completed and signed VA Form 21-4142 for Dr. James Skeen; then take all appropriate actions to obtain the identified records and associate them with the Veteran's eFolders.

3. After completion of the foregoing, obtain an addendum medical opinion from an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any hypertension. If the examiner determines that the opinion cannot be provided without an examination, one should be scheduled. Based on a review of the record, the examiner must address the following: (a) Is it as least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's currently diagnosed hypertension had its onset in service or is otherwise related to any incident of his active duty service, specifically to include as a result of conceded herbicide exposure? The examiner must specifically reference, in the opinion rationale, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Veterans and Agent Orange Updates, to include in 2010 and 2012, which stated that there was "limited or suggestive" evidence of an association between hypertension and herbicide exposure. In addition, the examiner must discuss whether they find the NAS Updates to be persuasive and weigh the relative risks presented by the Veteran's presumed Agent Orange exposure and other relevant factors. The examiner is advised that, although VA has not determined that hypertension qualifies for presumptive service connection based on herbicide exposure, this does not preclude a nexus to service.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bell v. Derwinski
2 Vet. App. 611 (Veterans Claims, 1992)
Stegall v. West
11 Vet. App. 268 (Veterans Claims, 1998)
Kutscherousky v. West
12 Vet. App. 369 (Veterans Claims, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
07-05 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/07-05-817-bva-2018.