The claim of entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C.

Citation Nr: 26001449 Decision Date: 01/30/26 Archive Date: 01/30/26 DOCKET NO. 14-35 268 DATE: January 30, 2026 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for hemorrhagic stroke residuals, claimed as due to VA treatment, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from October 1985 to May 1990. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a rating decision by a Regional Office (RO) of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This case has been subject to multiple actions by the Board and by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). Most recently, in an August 2025 Order responding to a July 2025 joint motion for remand (JMR), the Court vacated a September 2024 Board decision denying the claim and remanded the matter to the Board for additional consideration. In the JMR, the parties questioned whether VA substantially complied with the terms of a December 2022 JMR. First, were records noted in the earlier JMR added to the file and, if not, was there substantial compliance with the JMR's terms in attempting to retrieve them. Second, did VA examinations dated in December 2021 and April 2024 substantially comply with the terms of an August 2021 Board remand. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Include in the claims file any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. Notify the Veteran pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (e) that attempts to obtain VA treatment records dated in late December 2009, which reportedly referred to Warfarin treatment - i.e., treatment "5mg ThFrSun, 2.5mg Sa," on December 24, 2009, and "2.5mg," on December 28, 2009" - were unsuccessful as noted by a November 29, 2023 letter from the VA Portland Health Care System. 3. Obtain an addendum opinion addressing the questions below. The claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available for review. All medical evidence must be reviewed to include a recent private medical opinion included in the claims file in September 2025. The examination report must reflect that review of the claims file occurred. (a). Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran has additional disabilities due to December 2009 treatment at VA? If so, the full scope of additional disabilities must be clearly identified. If not, the examiner must offer a basis for this determination. (b). For each additional disability identified, the examiner must indicate whether the condition was proximately caused by: (i) carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or similar instance of fault by VA; OR (ii) by an event not reasonably foreseeable. In addressing inquiry (i), the examiner must explicitly address the Veteran's contentions that if he had been properly diagnosed or given antibiotics at the time of his December 1, 2009 VA treatment, all subsequent complications could have been avoided; that he was placed on an inappropriate dosage of Warfarin, which directly led to his stroke (note the April 2015 VA treatment record from neurologist M.D. linking the two events; and that his stroke was related to an infection caused by prior VA surgeries, as raised in a February 2010 statement. The examiner must also directly address the references identified by the Veteran's representative in a May 2021 statement. A complete rationale should be provided for all opinions or conclusions expressed. (Continued on the next page) ? It should be noted that the Veteran is competent to attest to observable symptomatology. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. 4. Readjudicate the claim and then, if in order, return the case to the Board. G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Christopher McEntee 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.