Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2009/03/17/denied-entitlement-on-a-basis-other-than-that-presumed-by-a-veteran-who-served-in-the-republic-of-vietnam-under-38-usc-%C2%A7-1116/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:28:11+00:00

Document:
Based on the foregoing analysis and a review of the record on appeal, the February 20, 2004, Board decision is VACATED to the extent it denied entitlement to service connection for type-II diabetes mellitus with peripheral neuropathy, nephropathy, and retinopathy on a basis other than that presumed by a veteran who “served in the Republic of Vietnam” under 38 U.S.C. § 1116, and the claim is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
“Neuropathy” is defined as “a disease involving the cranial nerves or the peripheral or autonomic nervous system”; “nephropathy” is “any disease of the kidney”; and “retinopathy” is a “noninflammatory degenerative disease of the retina.” STEDMAN’S MEDICAL DICTIONARY 1211, 1191, 1560 (27th ed. 2000).
Louis J. George and Barton F. Stichman, both of Washington, D.C., were on the brief for the appellant.
Paul J. Hutter, General Counsel; R. Randall Campbell, Assistant General Counsel; Brian B. Rippel, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and William L. Puchnick, all of Washington, D.C., were on the brief for the appellee.
Before HAGEL, MOORMAN, and LANCE, Judges.
February 20, 2004, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision that denied entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, with peripheral neuropathy, nephropathy, and retinopathy, all secondary to exposure to herbicide agents during his Vietnam-era service.1 Record (R.) at 11.
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in a 2-to-1 decision, and the matter was remanded. Haas v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1002 (U.S. Jan. 21, 2009). The Federal Circuit issued its mandate on October 16, 2008. For the following reasons, the Court will vacate in part the Board decision and will remand the claim for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Circuit, therefore, reversed this Court’s judgment.
retinopathy, claimed as loss of eyesight, based on a presumption that he was exposed to herbicides.
warranted because the Board provided an inadequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision.
from May 1963 to June 1970).
Board concluded that “[t]he appellant’s service medical records are silent as to diabetes.” R. at 5.
eyesight) “was not incurred in or aggravated during active service.” R. at 3, 8.
Secretary to make a decision on the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v.
1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 79, 81 (2006); 38 C.F.R.
information and lay or medical evidence (including statements of the claimant).” 38 U.S.C.
of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law’ standard of review.” McLendon, 20 Vet.App.
at 81; see 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3)(A).
satisfy the second prong of McLendon.
determining when the Secretary is required to furnish a medical examination. 20 Vet.App. at 83.
“may be associated” with service. McLendon, supra; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i).
loss of eyesight) is due to service or secondary to diabetes mellitus.
remanded matters, which the Board must consider when readjudicating his claim. See Kay v.
reasons or bases. On remand, the appellant is free to clarify his argument for the Board.
(discussing Board’s obligations in assessing credibility of lay statements); see also Jandreau v.
and sufficient in a particular case is a fact issue to be addressed by the Board”); Washington v.
provide expeditious treatment of this matter on remand. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112.
claim is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

References: § 1116
 v. 
 § 5103
 v.

 v. 
 § 7261
 § 3
 v.

 v.

 v.