Citation Nr: 18149855 Decision Date: 11/14/18 Archive Date: 11/13/18 DOCKET NO. 12-28 892 DATE: November 14, 2018 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for a prostate disorder, to include as due to herbicide exposure is remanded. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a urinary disorder, to include as due to herbicide exposure is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1965 to May 1967, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2010 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In April 2011, the Veteran testified before a Decision Review Officer (DRO) at the RO. In September 2014, he testified during a Board video-conference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. The Judge that conducted the September 2014 hearing is no longer employed by the Board. The Veteran was issued a letter in September 2018 advising him of this and providing him the opportunity to testify again before a different Veterans Law Judge. In October 2018, the Veteran replied that he did not wish to appear at another Board hearing. This case has a lengthy procedural history. Most recently, the Board denied the Veteran’s claims in an April 2017 decision. The Veteran appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In March 2018, the parties (the Secretary of VA and the Veteran) filed a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), which the Court granted in April 2018, vacating the April 2017 decision and remanding the appeal to the Board for action consistent with the JMR. 1. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a prostate disorder, to include as due to herbicide exposure is remanded. 2. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a urinary disorder, to include as due to herbicide exposure is remanded. The parties to the March 2018 JMR found that the Board erred in finding that the VA opinions were adequate to decide the Veteran’s claim in the April 2017 decision. The Veteran has claimed that his disorders are etiologically related to his conceded exposure to herbicides during his service in Vietnam. The examinations provided thus far do not address this theory of entitlement. The parties to the JMR thus found the opinions inadequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). The Board finds that remand is required for an addendum opinion that addresses the Veteran’s contention that his exposure to herbicides during service caused his prostate and urinary disabilities. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the appropriate VA Medical Center and obtain and associate with the claims file all outstanding records of treatment. If any requested records are not available, or the search for any such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact must clearly be documented in the claims file. Efforts to obtain these records must continue until it is determined that they do not exist or that further attempts to obtain them would be futile. The non-existence or unavailability of such records must be verified and this should be documented for the record. Required notice must be provided to the Veteran and his or her representative. 2. After any additional records are associated with the claims file, obtain an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of the prostate and urinary disorders from a VA examiner. The entire claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. If an examination is deemed necessary, it shall be provided. An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. The examiner must provide an opinion regarding whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the prostate and urinary disorders had onset in, or are otherwise related to, active service, to include the Veteran’s conceded in-service herbicide exposure, despite the fact that the disorders are not on the presumptive list. The examiner should address the Veteran’s reports of ongoing prostate and urinary tract-related pathology since his service. K. MILLIKAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Steve Ginski, Associate Counsel