Citation Nr: 1322710 Decision Date: 07/17/13 Archive Date: 07/24/13 DOCKET NO. 09-22 408 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a prostate disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip disorder, to include as secondary to bilateral pes planus with plantar fasciitis and hallux valgus. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. Edwards, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from January 1978 to January 1982. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) from March 2007 and June 2008 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required. REMAND The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for a prostate disorder and a bilateral hip disorder. The Board finds additional development is necessary. VA has a duty to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence, including the procurement of pertinent records and providing the claimant a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when such an examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision on a claim. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2012). The Veteran asserts he has a current prostate disorder that began during service. The Board notes that post-service records indicate the Veteran has been treated for prostate complaints on multiple occasions. He was treated for epididymitis in May 1986, testicular pain in 1995 and a prostate nodule was diagnosed in January 2008, which was found to be benign prostatic tissue with acute and chronic inflammation. Service treatment records indicate complaints of scrotal pain several times in 1979. To date, the Veteran has not yet been afforded a VA examination for this claimed disorder. Given the in-service and post-service complaints and treatment, the Board finds a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran a VA examination and to obtain a medical opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the claimed prostate disorder. The Veteran also asserts that his bilateral hip disorder is proximately due to or aggravated by his service-connected bilateral pes planus with plantar fasciitis and hallux valgus. The Board notes that the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in February 2007. The examiner opined that the Veteran's hip disorder is neither adjunct nor aggravated by his bilateral foot disability. However, no rationale or further explanation of the opinion was provided. The Court has held that a medical opinion that contains only conclusions is accorded no weight. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Therefore, the Board finds a remand is necessary to obtain an addendum opinion that contains a full rationale. Finally, any updated treatment records should be obtained and associated with the claims file. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain and associate with the claims file all updated treatment records. 2. Afford the Veteran a VA examination for his prostate disorder. Any and all indicated evaluations, studies, and tests deemed necessary by the examiner should be accomplished. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file. All current prostate disorders should be diagnosed. After the claims file is reviewed, for each diagnosed prostate disorder, the examiner should offer comments and an opinion addressing whether it is more likely than not (i.e., probability greater than 50 percent), at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of 50 percent), or less likely than not (i.e., probability less than 50 percent) that the Veteran's prostate disorder is in any way causally or etiologically related to his active service, to include the documented scrotal pain during service. In particular, review the lay statements as they relate to the development of his prostate disorder and provide information as to how the statements comport with generally accepted medical norms. If it is not possible to provide the requested opinion without resort to speculation, the examiner should state why speculation would be required in this case (e.g., if the requested determination is beyond the scope of current medical knowledge, actual causation cannot be selected from multiple potential causes, etc.). If there are insufficient facts or data within the claims file, the examiner should identify the relevant testing, specialist's opinion or other information needed to provide the requested opinion. All opinions should be supported by a clear rationale, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. The claims folder must be provided to the examiner for review. The examiner must state in the examination report that the claims folder has been reviewed. 3. Obtain an addendum opinion to the February 2007 VA examination. If deemed necessary by the examiner, afford the Veteran a VA examination for his bilateral hip disorder. Any and all indicated evaluations, studies, and tests deemed necessary by the examiner should be accomplished. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file. All current hip disorders should be diagnosed. After the claims file is reviewed, for each diagnosed hip disorder, the examiner should offer comments and an opinion addressing whether it is more likely than not (i.e., probability greater than 50 percent), at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of 50 percent), or less likely than not (i.e., probability less than 50 percent), that: a) the Veteran's hip disorder is in any way causally or etiologically related to his active service; and, b) that the Veteran's hip disorder is proximately due to or aggravated (a permanent increase in severity beyond natural progress) by his service-connected bilateral pes planus with plantar fasciitis and hallux valgus. In particular, review the lay statements as they relate to the development of his bilateral hips disorder and provide information as to how the statements comport with generally accepted medical norms. If it is not possible to provide the requested opinion without resort to speculation, the examiner should state why speculation would be required in this case (e.g., if the requested determination is beyond the scope of current medical knowledge, actual causation cannot be selected from multiple potential causes, etc.). If there are insufficient facts or data within the claims file, the examiner should identify the relevant testing, specialist's opinion or other information needed to provide the requested opinion. All opinions should be supported by a clear rationale, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. The claims folder must be provided to the examiner for review. The examiner must state in the examination report that the claims folder has been reviewed. 4. The Veteran is hereby notified that it is his responsibility to report for the examinations scheduled in connection with this REMAND and to cooperate in the development of his case. 5. After all of the above actions have been completed and the Veteran has been given adequate time to respond, readjudicate his claims. If the claims remain denied, issue to the Veteran a supplemental statement of the case, and afford the appropriate period of time within which to respond thereto. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2012). _________________________________________________ WAYNE M. BRAEUER Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2012).