Citation Nr: 21062058 Decision Date: 10/06/21 Archive Date: 10/06/21 DOCKET NO. 17-28 625A DATE: October 6, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably on active duty from May 1974 to August 1980. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2014 rating decision of a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Unfortunately, the Veteran died in June 2015 during the pendency of this appeal. The Veteran's surviving spouse has been substituted as the Appellant for his claim. By way of history, this appeal was previously before the Board in April 2019, at which time it was remanded to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for further evidentiary development. At this time, the Board finds that an additional remand is necessary in order to properly adjudicate the Veteran's claim. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is remanded. Prior to the Veteran's death, he contended that he was exposed to a variety of toxins that may have been associated with his development of prostate cancer. Specifically, the Veteran contended that during his active duty military service, he was exposed to contaminated water due to aviation and motor vehicle gasoline, as well as to non-ionizing radiation and asbestos while working on the USS Inchon LPH 12. See June 2014 notice of disagreement (NOD). The Appellant's representative has also submitted articles suggesting that exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) could also cause certain diseases, including prostate cancer. A VA opinion was obtained in December 2019 addressing the etiology of the Veteran's prostate cancer. The December 2019 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's prostate cancer was less likely than not incurred in or caused by his active duty service, to include any exposure to contaminated water with aviation and mobile gas, non-ionizing radiation, or EMFs. However, the Board finds that the December 2019 VA opinion is inadequate. When VA undertakes to provide a VA medical opinion, it must ensure that the opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). First, the December 2019 VA examiner did not address the Veteran's contention that he was exposed to asbestos during active duty service and that such exposure may be related to the development of his prostate cancer. Further, the examiner relied upon an equivocal rationale to provide a negative nexus for prostate cancer. As such, the Board finds the December 2019 VA opinion is inadequate and remands for a new opinion. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum VA opinion from a qualified physician, to include an oncologist if possible. The physician must review the claims file. The physician is asked to provide a response to the following: Was the Veteran's prostate cancer at least as likely as not related to service, including exposure to asbestos aboard the USS Inchon and/or exposure to water contaminated with aviation and mobile gas, non-ionizing radiation, radar, sonar, and accompanying EMFs? The physician is asked to provide the underlying reasons for all opinions expressed, and is reminded that the term "as likely as not" does not mean "within the realm of medical possibility," but rather that the evidence of record is so evenly divided that, in the examiner's expert opinion, it is as medically sound to find in favor of the proposition as against it. The physician is advised that a negative opinion cannot be based solely on the fact that the claimed condition i.e., prostate cancer, was not noted in the Veteran's service records. Bethany L. Buck Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R. M. Lowman, Associate Counsel 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.