BVA Case 17-4413: Back

In November 2014,the Board found that the October 2012 VA examination report was not fully responsive to its June 2011 remand directives,which had instructed the examiner to consider the appellant's lay statements regarding inhalational exposures when determining the nature and likely etiology of the claimed lung disorder.

The Board found that the resulting December 2014 addendum contained a conclusive medical opinion that reflected review of the appellant's claims file,including his lay statements regarding inhalational exposures during military service;clinical notes from his private physician;the April 2011 Board hearing transcript; statements from his representative; photographs of U.

The Board noted that the VA examiner who wrote the opinion was a pulmonary specialist certified in pulmonary diseases by the American Board of Internal Medicine.

By contrast,the Board determined that the appellant was not competent to offer an opinion regarding the complex medical issue of the relationship between in-service exposures and the development of sarcoidosis and asthma.

First,he contends that the Board failed to ensure that VA's duty to assist was satisfied,asserting that the October 2012 and December 2014 VA medical opinions were inadequate for a fully informed review.

Second,he asserts that the Board failed to ensure substantial compliance with its November 2014 remand order and failed to cross-examine the December 2014 VA examiner's opinion against the favorable evidence he provided,including his lay statements.

Third, he argues that the Board failed to address whether it was necessary to seek an opinion from Dr.

The appellant alternatively asserts that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases to support its findings regarding the above issues.