Citation Nr: 20006858 Decision Date: 01/28/20 Archive Date: 01/28/20 DOCKET NO. 19-00 856 DATE: January 28, 2020 ORDER The claim of entitlement to service connection for a left testicle disorder is reopened. Service connection for a left testicle disorder is granted. VETERAN’S CONTENTIONS The Veteran contends that he has a current left testicle disorder that is related to service. Specifically, he contends that he has a missing left testicle as a result of service, to include herbicide exposure therein. He reported that he was treated for swollen testicles within a year of separation from service, after which his left testicle atrophied and essentially disappeared. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a July 2008 decision, the Board denied service connection for a left testicle disorder; evidence received since that denial relates to unestablished facts necessary to substantiate that claim. 2. A left testicle disorder was incurred during active duty service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The July 2008 Board decision is final; new and material has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a left testicle disorder. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7103, 7104; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 20.1100, 20.1104. 2. The criteria for service connection for a left testicle condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from January 1966 to January 1968. This matter is before the Board following his appeal of an August 2018 rating decision. In October 2019, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. The Veteran is seeking service connection for a left testicle disorder. Initially, the Board observes that entitlement to service connection for a left testicle disorder was finally denied by the Board in an unappealed July 2008 decision based, in part, on a lack of nexus between a current left testicle disorder and service. Since that decision, the Veteran submitted new and material evidence to reopen his claim, including a private November 2019 medical opinion supporting a nexus between the Veteran’s left testicle atrophy and herbicide exposure in service. Thus, the claim is reopened. Turning to the merits of the claim, following a review of the record, the Board finds that service connection for a left testicle disorder is warranted. Generally, in order to prove service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of 1) a current disability, 2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and 3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See, e.g., Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341 (1999). Here, the Veteran has a current disability, as he was observed to have an “absent” left testicle as early as 1997. The record also supports an in-service injury, as the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to herbicides while serving in Vietnam from July 1966 to July 1967. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). Thus, the only remaining question is whether the Veteran’s current left testicle disorder is related to service. The only opinion evidence of record in this case weighs in favor of the Veteran’s claim. Specifically, the Veteran submitted a November 2019 private medical opinion from his former treating provider in favor of his claim. The doctor noted treatment of the Veteran for over 30 years, as well as the Veteran’s testicular atrophy and history of exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam. He explained that dioxin is a contaminant found to be present in Agent Orange, and has also been identified as a cause of testicular atrophy. As such, he concluded that it was at least possible, if not “perhaps likely that his testicular atrophy is related to his exposure to Agent Orange.” Though not flawless, given the private provider’s medical expertise and familiarity with the Veteran’s medical history, the Board finds that the opinion is entitled to significant probative weight. The positive November 2019 opinion is consistent with the Veteran’s competent lay testimony that he experienced and received VA treatment for swelling of the testicles, followed by atrophy of the left testicle, within months of his separation from service. See, e.g., October 2019 Hearing Testimony; September 2003 VA Form 21-526; August 2003 VA Treatment Note. He provided a similar account as early as August 2003 during VA treatment. Furthermore, although there are admittedly no associated VA treatment records from that early treatment, the Veteran’s ex-wife confirmed that she accompanied the Veteran to the VA for treatment for swollen testicles in 1968, after which his left testicle “shrank away to nothing.” See June 2004 Statement; October 2019 Hearing Testimony. Indeed, as early as May 1999, prior to the filing of any claim for benefits, the Veteran reported other early VA treatment for which no records have been associated. Thus, the Board finds credible the competent lay testimony of the Veteran and his ex-wife that the Veteran experienced left testicular atrophy just months after leaving service, which tends to support a positive nexus between the two. Given the foregoing, particularly in the absence of competent opinion evidence weighing against the Veteran’s claim, the Board finds that all of the criteria for service connection are met. Accordingly, service connection for a left testicle disorder is warranted. S. C. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Fagan 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.