Citation Nr: 18154179 Decision Date: 11/29/18 Archive Date: 11/29/18 DOCKET NO. 13-33 630 DATE: November 29, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for chronic prostatitis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1964 to October 1966. This matter is on appeal from a November 2009 rating decision, which denied entitlement to service connection for chronic prostatitis. Entitlement to service connection for chronic prostatitis is remanded. A review of the claims file reveals that a remand is necessary before a decision on the merits of the claim can be reached for the following reasons. A review of the Veteran’s service treatment records does not reflect any complaints, findings, or treatment for chronic prostatitis. An October 1966 report of medical history documented the Veteran’s negative response to whether he had ever had frequent or painful urination. A December 1970 private medical record reported that the Veteran had a history of chronic prostatitis. Another December 1970 medical record reported that the Veteran experienced a dull aching groin pain eight months ago. He also reported experiencing burning on urination. To address his prostate problems, the Veteran reported being seen “numerous times” at a campus health center when he attended Penn State University. A January 1993 letter from a private urologist, Dr. F.D.G., reported that the Veteran had a long history of prostatitis. A July 2010 letter from Dr. F.D.G. reported that the Veteran had been suffering from prostatitis many years before 1993. According to Dr. F.D.G., it cannot be proven that the Veteran’s condition of chronic prostatitis was not caused by his exposure to Agent Orange. The Veteran’s military personnel records show that he served in the Republic of Vietnam. At a January 2014 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he first sought treatment for urination problems around the time he started attending college, which was 1967. He reported that he was given a prostate examination and first prescribed medication to treat his urination problems at that time. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination for his prostate dysfunction in September 2015. In the examination report, the examiner reported the origin of the Veteran’s prostate dysfunction as follows: “In 1970 while he was in college he developed burning and an ache when he urinated and visited a local clinic and was diagnosed with prostatitis in 1970.” The September 2015 examiner provided an addendum opinion in October 2017. The examiner reported that the Veteran experienced pain and burning when he urinated while attending college in 1970. The examiner’s rationale for a negative nexus opinion included the following: “The veteran did not develop symptoms related to the prostate until 1970 which was years after his time on active duty.” As described earlier, prior to the September 2015 VA examination, the Veteran provided sworn testimony at a Board hearing that he first sought treatment for urination problems around the time he started attending college in 1967. However, as part of his rationale for a negative nexus opinion, the VA examiner stated that the Veteran did not develop symptoms related to the prostate until 1970, which was years after his time on active duty. The examiner did not discuss in his opinion the Veteran’s prior sworn testimony that his symptoms of prostate dysfunction began in 1967. Therefore, a remand is necessary for an addendum opinion to address whether the Veteran’s chronic prostatitis is related to his service after clarifying the date at which the Veteran began experiencing symptoms of prostate dysfunction. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to clarify the date at which he initially began experiencing any symptoms of prostate dysfunction, including symptoms such as painful urination or pain in the groin area. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from the VA examiner who provided the October 2017 addendum opinion or another appropriate medical professional if the examiner is unavailable. The examiner should provide a medical opinion regarding whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s chronic prostatitis is related to his service. 3. The examiner should consider the date at which the Veteran began experiencing symptoms of prostate dysfunction in his analysis. The examiner must provide an opinion as to etiology in the form of a probability, and must provide a complete rationale for the opinion expressed. 4. Once the above-requested development has been completed, the claim must be readjudicated. If any determination remains unfavorable to the Veteran, he and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) that addresses all relevant actions taken on the claim for benefits, and be given an opportunity to respond to the SSOC. The case must then be returned to the Board for further consideration, if otherwise in order. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter 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. §§ 5109B, 7112. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Moore, Associate Counsel