Case A26037209

M. SCHLICKENMAIER · 2026 · Case ID: A26037209

MIXED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Marine Corps from March 1995 to March 1999, appeals the denial of service connection for several conditions, including neck, migraines, back, hypertension, restless leg syndrome, TMJ disorder, and vertigo. The Board found that new and relevant evidence was submitted for these claims, warranting readjudication. The Board also reviewed claims for gastroenteritis, dental disability (residuals of wisdom teeth extractions), and right achilles tendon strain. Service connection for cervical spine intervertebral disc disease, migraines, lumbar strain with spondylolisthesis, and restless leg syndrome was granted based on favorable findings from a prior Board decision and evidence of record. The Board found the Veteran's cervical spine and back conditions related to service, his migraines began in service, and his restless leg syndrome had evidence of onset during service, resolving doubt in his favor. Claims for gastroenteritis, dental disability, and right achilles tendon strain were denied due to lack of current disability or insufficient evidence. The case is remanded for further development on claims for diverticulitis/diverticulosis, TMJ disorder, vertigo, and hypertension due to pre-decisional duty to assist errors.

Service Branch

MARINE CORPS

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

200722-92398

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26037209
Decision Date: 04/21/26 Archive Date: 04/21/26

DOCKET NO. 200722-92398
DATE: April 21, 2026

ORDER

Readjudication of the claim for service connection for a neck condition is warranted.

Readjudication of the claim for service connection for migraines is warranted.

Readjudication of the claim for service connection for a back condition is warranted.

Readjudication of the claim for service connection for restless leg syndrome is warranted.

Readjudication of the claim for service connection for TMJ disorder is warranted.

Readjudication of the claim for service connection for gastroenteritis is denied.

Readjudication of the claim for service connection for vertigo is warranted.

Readjudication of the claim for service connection for hypertension is warranted.

Service connection for cervical spine intervertebral disc disease is granted.

Service connection for migraines is granted.

Service connection for lumbar strain with spondylolisthesis is granted.

Service connection for restless leg syndrome is granted.

Service connection for a dental disability (claimed as residuals of wisdom teeth extractions) is denied.

Service connection for right achilles tendon strain is denied.

REMANDED

Service connection for diverticulitis and/or diverticulosis is remanded.

Service connection for temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorder is remanded.

Service connection for vertigo is remanded.

Service connection for hypertension is remanded.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. New and relevant evidence has been received with respect to the claims for service connection for neck, migraines, back, hypertension, restless leg syndrome, TMJ disorder, and vertigo.

2. New and relevant evidence has not been received with respect to the claim for service connection for gastroenteritis.

3. In August 2024, the Board found that the Veteran's cervical spine intervertebral disc disease is related to his service.

4. In August 2024, the Board found that the Veteran's migraines began in service and have continued to the present.

5. In August 2024, the Board found that the Veteran's lumbar strain with spondylolisthesis is related to his service.

6. The Veteran's restless leg syndrome onset during his active service.

7. The Veteran did not have any dental disability eligible for VA compensation during the course of the claim.

8. No right achilles tendon condition was shown during the course of the claim.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for readjudication of the claims for service connection for neck, migraines, back, hypertension, restless leg syndrome, TMJ disorder, and vertigo have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.

2. The criteria for readjudication of the claim for service connection for gastroenteritis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.

3. The criteria for service connection for cervical spine intervertebral disc disease have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304.

4. The criteria for service connection for migraines have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304.

5. The criteria for service connection for lumbar strain with spondylolisthesis have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304.

6. The criteria for service connection for restless leg syndrome have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304.

7. The criteria for service connection for residuals of wisdom teeth extractions have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 4.150.

8. The criteria for service connection for right achilles tendon strain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from March 1995 to March 1999
. The criteria for service connection for residuals of wisdom teeth extractions have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 4.150.

8. The criteria for service connection for right achilles tendon strain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from March 1995 to March 1999, in the United States Marine Corps.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from two November 2019 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In July 2020, the Veteran timely filed a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, electing the Hearing docket. In March 2024, prior to his hearing being held, the Veteran withdrew his hearing request.

Given this procedural history, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the applicable November 2019 decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b). If any evidence was submitted outside of these evidence windows, it was not considered. If the Veteran would like any such evidence to be considered, the Veteran may file a supplemental claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. Regarding the claims being remanded, any such evidence will be considered by the RO on remand.

New and relevant evidence

The Board notes that following prior denials of his claims for service connection for his neck, migraines, back, gastroenteritis, hypertension, restless leg syndrome, TMJ disorder, and vertigo, the Veteran filed a supplemental claim for service connection for these conditions in September 2019.

Under the AMA, a claimant may pursue a claim or issue by filing a supplemental claim following notice of a decision by the RO or the Board. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(c). If new and relevant evidence is presented or secured with respect to the supplemental claim, the RO will readjudicate the claim taking into consideration all of the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. New evidence is evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a)(1). Relevant evidence is information that tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue in a claim. Id. If new and relevant evidence is not presented or secured, the RO will issue a decision finding that there was insufficient evidence to readjudicate the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.

In the November 2019 rating decision on appeal, the RO found that new and relevant evidence regarding these eight claims had not been received (although it did appear to proceed to adjudicate the claims on the merits).

Evidence added to the record between the prior rating decisions and the November 2019 rating decision on appeal includes an April 2019 statement from the Veteran regarding his neck, migraines, back, hypertension, restless leg syndrome, TMJ symptoms, and vertigo symptoms. This evidence is new, as it was not previously part of the record before agency adjudicators. It is also relevant, as it contains additional details contributing to a more complete picture surrounding the origins of the Veteran's claimed conditions. Accordingly, the Board finds that readjudication of the claims for service connection for neck, migraines, back, hypertension, restless leg syndrome, TMJ disorder, and vertigo is warranted.

Regarding the Veteran's claim for gastroenteritis, the Board finds that new and relevant evidence has not been received. Since the March 2017 denial, the Veteran has not submitted any new evidence, nor made any new contentions as to service connection for gastroenteritis. VA treatment records received since that time have also not touched on this issue. Accordingly, the Board finds that readjudication of the claim for gastroenteritis is not warranted.

Service connection

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a
not submitted any new evidence, nor made any new contentions as to service connection for gastroenteritis. VA treatment records received since that time have also not touched on this issue. Accordingly, the Board finds that readjudication of the claim for gastroenteritis is not warranted.

Service connection

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Additionally, for veterans who served continuously for 90 days or more, certain chronic diseases-including arthritis, hypertension, and organic diseases of the nervous system-are presumed to have been incurred in service if such manifested to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.

The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation and in the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). "Current" means near the time a claim is filed or at any time during its pendency. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 293 (2013) (holding that the Board erred in finding no current disability in regards to a November 2008 claim for service connection when there was a May 2008 diagnosis); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007). "Disability" refers to the functional impairment of earning capacity. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed Cir. 2018) (holding that pain resulting in functional impairment can constitute a disability even without an identified underlying diagnosis). Functional impairment in earning capacity can be demonstrated by "showing manifestations of a similar severity, frequency, and duration as those VA has determined by regulation would cause impaired earning capacity in an average person." Wait v. Wilkie, 33 Vet. App. 8, 17 (2020).

1. Service connection for cervical spine intervertebral disc disease

2. Service connection for migraines

3. Service connection for lumbar strain with spondylolisthesis

In the November 29, 2019, rating decision on appeal, in part, service connection for neck, migraine, and back conditions was denied. The Veteran timely and properly appealed these denials in the July 2020 VA Form 10182 currently before the Board.

In the meantime, in March 2021, the Veteran filed a supplemental claim seeking service connection for neck, migraine, and back conditions. Under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) framework, when the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issues notice of a decision, the claimant may take any of the following actions: (1) file a request for higher-level review within one year of the date the AOJ issued notice of a decision, (2) file a Board appeal within one year of the date the AOJ issued notice of a decision, or (3) file a supplemental claim any time after the AOJ issued notice of a decision. 38 U.S.C. § 5104C; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500. Concurrent elections are prohibited. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b). A claimant who has filed for review under one of these three options may not file for review under a different available option until the higher-level review, supplemental claim, or Board appeal is adjudicated or the request for higher-level review, supplemental claim, or Board appeal is withdrawn. 38 U.S.C. § 5104C(a)(2)(A); 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b).

As the Veteran's July 2020 Board appeal was pending at the time of his March 2021 supplemental claim, the March 2021 claim was an impermissible concurrent election. Nevertheless, the RO erroneously adjudicated the claim in April 2021 and issued another rating decision denying service connection for
(b). A claimant who has filed for review under one of these three options may not file for review under a different available option until the higher-level review, supplemental claim, or Board appeal is adjudicated or the request for higher-level review, supplemental claim, or Board appeal is withdrawn. 38 U.S.C. § 5104C(a)(2)(A); 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b).

As the Veteran's July 2020 Board appeal was pending at the time of his March 2021 supplemental claim, the March 2021 claim was an impermissible concurrent election. Nevertheless, the RO erroneously adjudicated the claim in April 2021 and issued another rating decision denying service connection for neck, migraine, and back conditions. The Veteran filed a VA Form 10182 as to this decision in May 2021. As the Veteran selected a different docket for his May 2021 appeal, it came before the Board prior to the July 2020 appeal currently before the Board. In an August 2024 decision, the Board granted service connection for the Veteran's cervical spine intervertebral disc disease, migraines, and lumbar strain with spondylolisthesis.

However, those grants do not moot the Veteran's claims for service connection within this appeal as the claims within this appeal would entitle him to earlier effective dates for service connection than his current effective dates.

In its August 2024 decision, the Board relied on a March 2021 private opinion that is not in the record on appeal here. However, the Board in August 2024 made favorable findings that the Veteran's cervical spine intervertebral disc disease and lumbar strain with spondylolisthesis are related to his service. The Board also made a favorable finding that the Veteran's migraines began in service and have continued to the present.

Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c), a favorable finding by the Board is binding on all subsequent Board adjudicators, unless rebutted by evidence that identifies a clear and unmistakable error in the favorable finding. Thus, the Board finds that it is bound by the August 2024 favorable findings.

Accordingly, it has been found that the Veteran's cervical spine intervertebral disc disease and lumbar strain with spondylolisthesis are related to his service. The only remaining question regarding the claims for service connection for these disabilities is whether such current disabilities were shown during the period on appeal here. As the RO made favorable findings to that effect in the November 2019 rating decision on appeal, the Board finds that all elements necessary for service connection are shown. Thus, service connection for cervical spine intervertebral disc disease and lumbar strain with spondylolisthesis is granted.

Regarding the claim for service connection for migraines, as it has been found that the Veteran has a chronic migraine condition that began in service and has continued to the present, all elements necessary for service connection are shown. Accordingly, service connection for migraines is also granted.

4. Service connection for restless leg syndrome

The Veteran seeks service connection for restless leg syndrome, which he contends onset during his active service.

In the November 2019 rating decision on appeal, the RO found that the Veteran has a current restless leg syndrome disability. Accordingly, the first element necessary for service connection-a current disability-has been met and the question becomes whether the Veteran's restless leg syndrome is related to his active service.

The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) show that shortly before his separation from active service, he underwent a sleep study in February 1999 and was diagnosed with sleep apnea. The February 1999 sleep study report notes periodic leg movements during the study.

In May 1999, shortly after the Veteran's separation from service, he underwent a CPAP study, which found that the Veteran's periodic leg movements remained with CPAP use during the study. A June 1999 VA treatment note discussing the May 1999 study appears somewhat inconclusive on the issue of a diagnosis regarding the leg movements, noting that the Veteran "may have periodic leg movements as a second diagnosis" (in addition to his sleep apnea). (emphasis added). However, this uncertainty appears to be due to a question as to whether the Veteran's leg movements would continue once proper CPAP therapy had been established.

The Board notes that the Veteran's VA treatment records from the period on appeal note a current restless leg syndrome condition during the period on appeal. In addition, at a November 2016 VA central nervous system conditions examination, the examiner noted that the medical evidence of record supports the Veteran's report of a history of restless leg movements going back to February 1999.

Accordingly, based on the above, the Board finds the evidence to at least be in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's restless
as a second diagnosis" (in addition to his sleep apnea). (emphasis added). However, this uncertainty appears to be due to a question as to whether the Veteran's leg movements would continue once proper CPAP therapy had been established.

Accordingly, based on the above, the Board finds the evidence to at least be in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's restless leg syndrome onset during his active service. Therefore, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for restless leg syndrome is warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

5. Service connection for a dental disability (claimed as residuals of wisdom teeth extractions)

6. Service connection for right achilles tendon strain

The Veteran seeks service connection for residuals of wisdom teeth extractions performed during service. (The Board notes that the Veteran has filed a separate claim for TMJ disorder and that one of his contentions regarding his TMJ disorder is that it was caused by his wisdom teeth extractions. The Board will separately address the Veteran's claim for TMJ disorder in the remand section below.)

The Veteran also seeks service connection for right achilles tendon strain.

As noted above, the three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, the initial question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current dental disability for VA compensation purposes and/or a right achilles tendon disability. Upon review of the record in this case, the Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of any such disabilities and has not had a current diagnosis of any such disabilities at any time during the pendency of the claims for service connection or recent to the filing of the claims.

Regarding the Veteran's claim for residuals of wisdom teeth extractions, he contends that he has "holes in bottom jaw" as a result of the in-service extractions of his wisdom teeth. See April 2019 claim for service connection. He contends that he has had several infections in this area and that food occasionally gets caught in the "tooth-sized divots." See April 2019 statement. Upon review of the record, the Board finds that there is no evidence of any dental disability eligible for VA compensation.

VA disability compensation is only available for certain types of dental and oral conditions, such as loss or impairment of the maxilla or mandible. Compensation is available for loss of teeth only if such loss is due to bone loss (of the maxilla or mandible) through trauma or disease such as osteomyelitis. 38 C.F.R. § 4.150, Diagnostic Code 9913, Note to Diagnostic Code 9913.

The Veteran underwent a VA TMJ conditions examination in February 2017. The examiner reported that there was no loss of any portion of the maxilla or mandible and no malunion/nonunion of the maxilla.

Service and post-service treatment records also do not document any loss of substance of the body of the maxilla or mandible. In addition, the Veteran has not reported incurring any loss of the maxilla or mandible. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran does not have any dental disability eligible for VA disability compensation.

Regarding the Veteran's claim for service connection for right achilles tendon strain, the Board notes that the Veteran's STRs show bilateral achilles tendon strain during service in 1995. However, there is no evidence of a current right achilles tendon condition during the period on appeal. The Veteran's treatment records from the period on appeal do not contain any complaints, diagnosis, or treatment regarding the right achilles tendon. In addition, the Veteran has made no specific contentions regarding his claim for service connection for a right achilles tendon condition.

Congress has specifically limited entitlement to service-connected benefits to cases where there is a current disability. See Brammer, 3 Vet. App. at 225. As the evidence here does not reflect current disabilities or symptoms that result in functional impairment of earning capacity, service connection cannot be established.

As there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the above claims, the benefit-of-the-doubt
no evidence of a current right achilles tendon condition during the period on appeal. The Veteran's treatment records from the period on appeal do not contain any complaints, diagnosis, or treatment regarding the right achilles tendon. In addition, the Veteran has made no specific contentions regarding his claim for service connection for a right achilles tendon condition.

As there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the above claims, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable and the claims are denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

REASONS FOR REMAND

Upon review of the record on appeal, the Board finds that pre-decisional duty to assist errors occurred regarding the below claims. As these claims cannot be granted under any raised theory of entitlement based on the current evidence of record, remand to correct the pre-decisional duty to assist errors is necessary. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a).

In remanding these claims, the Board makes no credibility determination, express or implied, at this juncture. See Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249, 259-62 (noting that a medical opinion may inform the Board's understanding of the medical feasibility and credibility of lay statements).

1. Service connection for diverticulitis and/or diverticulosis

The Board notes that while the Veteran filed his claim for service connection as a claim for diverticulitis, the Veteran's treatment records from the period on appeal note a diagnosis of diverticulosis without diverticulitis.

The Veteran contends that his diverticulosis onset during active duty. In a July 2016 statement received prior to the rating decision on appeal, he notes that when he was recently diagnosed with diverticulosis, he was told that his numerous diverticula must have been there for a long time. He notes that his service treatment records (STRs) contain evidence of gastrointestinal problems including diarrhea during his active duty.

As there was an indication that the Veteran's diverticulosis may be related to his service but insufficient evidence to decide the claim, the Board finds that a VA examination and medical opinion were needed. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81-83 (2006) (noting that the threshold for an examination is low and requires only that the evidence "indicates" that there "may" be a nexus between the current disability and active service).

As the RO did not obtain an examination and medical opinion regarding the Veteran's claim for service connection, remand is necessary to correct this pre-decisional duty to assist error.

2. Service connection for TMJ disorder

The Veteran contends that he has TMJ disorder which onset during active duty. Alternatively, he claims that he has TMJ disorder which was caused by his in-service wisdom teeth extraction or caused or aggravated by his service-connected sleep apnea.

The Veteran's VA treatment records note TMJ and that the Veteran wears a night guard. However, the records are negative for specific details about the history or symptoms of the condition.

Prior to the rating decision on appeal, the Veteran underwent a VA TMJ conditions examination in February 2017 with a Prosthodontist/Orofacial Pain Specialist. Following examination of the Veteran, the examiner concluded that the Veteran does not have a TMJ condition. The examiner found "mild masticatory muscle myalgia and myositis, with a myofascial trigger point found in the left trapezius muscle." The examiner noted that the Veteran had had cervical fusion surgery and that this "suggests the masticatory muscle activity may be the result of protective co-contraction of cervical musculature." The examiner concluded that the Veteran does not have a TMJ disorder that is secondary to his sleep apnea.

The February 2017 examiner did not discuss the Veteran's treatment records which note a current TMJ condition. In addition, the RO made a favorable finding that he does in the rating decision on appeal that the Veteran has a current TMJ disability.

As the discrepancy between this evidence and the February 2017 examiner's conclusion that the Veteran does not have a TMJ condition was not resolved prior to the rating decision on appeal, the Board finds that a pre-decisional duty to assist error occurred and remand is warranted.

3. Service connection for vertigo

In the November 201
contraction of cervical musculature." The examiner concluded that the Veteran does not have a TMJ disorder that is secondary to his sleep apnea.

3. Service connection for vertigo

In the November 2019 rating decision on appeal, service connection for vertigo was denied based in part on a finding of no current disability.

However, the Veteran's treatment records from the period on appeal note occasional vertigo (see May 2018 and April 2019 VA treatment records) and prior to the rating decision on appeal, the Veteran contended that he has experienced continuing symptoms of vertigo since his service.

In addition, the Veteran's STRs note in-service vertigo (see, e.g., September 1998 record noting vertigo for the last eight months). The Veteran has noted that his dizziness symptoms began after his in-service surgery for a broken nose. See November 2014 statement.

As the Veteran's treatment records from the period on appeal note only occasional vertigo, it is unclear whether the Veteran has a current disability. However, as there was an indication that the Veteran may have a current vertigo disability related to his service but insufficient evidence to decide the claim, the Board finds that a VA examination and medical opinion were needed. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81-83 (2006).

As the RO did not obtain an examination and medical opinion regarding the Veteran's claim for service connection, remand is necessary to correct this pre-decisional duty to assist error.

4. Service connection for hypertension

Prior to the rating decision on appeal, a medical opinion was obtained in November 2016 regarding whether the Veteran's hypertension is related to his service-connected sleep apnea. However, the opinion did not contain adequate rationale, noting only that current medical literature does not support a causal nexus and there is no objective evidence of aggravation. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008) (holding that it is the factually accurate, fully articulated, sound reasoning for the conclusion that contributes to the probative value of a medical opinion).

Based on the above, the Board finds that a pre-decisional duty to assist error has occurred and remand is warranted in order to obtain an adequate opinion regarding whether the Veteran's hypertension has been caused or aggravated by his sleep apnea. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007) (holding that when VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate).

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain an examination and medical opinion regarding the Veteran's claim for service connection for diverticulitis/diverticulosis.

2. Obtain a medical opinion to resolve the conflicting evidence regarding a TMJ disorder diagnosis and whether any TMJ disorder is related to the Veteran's sleep apnea or to service, to include his in-service wisdom teeth extractions.

3. Obtain an examination and medical opinion regarding the Veteran's claim for service connection for vertigo.

(Continued on the next page)

4. Obtain a medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's hypertension is related to his sleep apnea.

M. Schlickenmaier

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board M. Jesteadt

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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer