Citation Nr: 21064592 Decision Date: 10/20/21 Archive Date: 10/20/21 DOCKET NO. 17-48 826 DATE: October 20, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a prostate disability, to include benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1968 to October 1969, including in the Republic of Vietnam. This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2014 rating decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2020, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing. The transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. The Board remanded this matter for a VA examination and opinion regarding the etiology of any diagnosed prostate disability in January 2021. A Board remand confers on the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a claim, the examination must be an adequate one. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). Unfortunately, although the Veteran was provided with a VA examination, the information provided is insufficient for the Board to make a fully informed evaluation regarding the issue of service connection for a prostate disability. Another remand is required. During the January 2020 hearing, the Veteran testified to experiencing the increased need to void within one year of his separation from service in 1970. VA treatment records show the Veteran sought treatment in December 2006 for dysuria, suspected to be BPH, and in June 2007, mild BPH was diagnosed. Further, VA treatment records throughout the period on appeal show the Veteran has been prescribed tamsulosin HCL to treat BPH. The March 2021 VA examiner provided an addendum opinion in April 2021 stating the Veteran has had BPH as early as 2012 and has tried terazosin in the past, but symptoms have resolved by the examination date. The examiner noted that the Veteran stated he does not have a prostate issue and does not have any prostate cancer. As BPH was not diagnosed until 2012, many years after service, BPH is less likely than not due to service. The examiner noted that BPH happens to many men as they age and is a part of normal aging. The Board acknowledges the March 2021 VA examiner opinion that BPH is a normal part of male aging, and it is less likely than not that the BPH is related to the Veteran's periods of service but assigns that opinion diminished probative weight. The examination report did not rest on correct facts, as the record demonstrates a diagnosis and treatment for BPH throughout the period on appeal and a diagnosis as early as 2007. See Acevedo v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 286, 293 (2012); Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993). Further, the VA examiner failed to consider the Veteran's testimony of experiencing voiding issues since 1970, shortly after separation from service. Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249, 257 (2020). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his prostate disability, including BPH. The examiner must review the claims file. If the examiner disagrees with the diagnosis of BPH during the period on appeal (from approximately April 2014 to the present), the examiner must explain why. The examiner is on notice that there is evidence of a diagnosis and treatment for BPH starting in 2007 and that the Veteran has reported voiding issues since 1970, shortly after he separated from service. The examiner must respond to the following: 1. Is the Veteran's prostate disability, including BPH, at least as likely as not related to service? 2. Is the Veteran's prostate disability, including BPH, at least as likely as not related to in-service exposure to herbicide agents? The examiner is advised that a negative opinion cannot be based solely on the fact that the Veteran's prostate disability, including BPH, is not on the list of diseases that are presumptively associated with exposure to herbicide agents. 3. Is the Veteran's prostate disability, to include BPH, caused by OR aggravated by his service-connected disabilities of coronary artery disease or post-traumatic stress disorder or the medications taken for his service-connected disabilities. (Continued on the next page) A detailed explanation is required to support all opinions provided. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Costa, 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.