Citation Nr: 21071509 Decision Date: 11/30/21 Archive Date: 11/30/21 DOCKET NO. 17-36 040 DATE: November 30, 2021 REMANDED Compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for chronic pain of the right groin following bilateral inguinal hernia surgery is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1980 to September 1984. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from February 2015 and February 2016 rating decisions by the Regional Office (RO). In March 2019, the Board remanded this matter for additional development; it is now before the Board and has been reassigned to the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. Compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for chronic pain of the right groin following bilateral inguinal hernia surgery is remanded. As an initial matter, the record reflects that, since the last Board remand, the Veteran is in receipt of Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits in connection with the issue on appeal. Because his SSA records may reasonably contain information relating to the issue on appeal, remand is required to obtain these records. See Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Veteran contends his chronic pain is due to his bilateral inguinal hernia surgery. The Board remanded this matter to determine whether the Veteran's chronic pain was (a) due to carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or similar instance of fault on the part of VA in furnishing the hospital care, medical or surgical treatment, or examination; or (b) an event not reasonably foreseeable. The September 2020 VA examiner opined that there was no evidence of any complication from the Veteran's surgery and that postsurgical changes are a standard finding on CT scan following invasive surgery. Additionally, "some residual pain is a common occurrence following inguinal hernia surgery." The examiner found that there was no evidence "to suggest that the condition was caused by, or became worse due to VA treatment, that additional disability resulted from carelessness, negligence, lack of skill, etc., or that additional disability resulted from an event that could have been foreseen by a reasonable healthcare provider, or that there was failure on the part of the VA to treat the claimed disease or allowed it to progress." Subsequent to this examination, a November 2020 VA examiner noted the Veteran developed bilateral inguinal hernias requiring surgical repair in March 2015. Since onset, the condition "Progressed/Worsened." Symptoms include right inguinal region and right scrotal pain particularly with prolonged sitting. She found an injury to muscle group XIX, the muscles of the abdominal wall. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that an addendum opinion addressing this opinion is necessary. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request directly from the SSA relevant records, including determinations and medical records, regarding any claim for disability benefits. All attempts to fulfill this development should be documented in the claim file. If the records are unavailable, it should be noted in the record and the reason for unavailability should be provided. 2. Upon completion of the above, obtain an opinion from a urologist, or other qualified medical professional, to address whether the Veteran has an additional disability, caused by VA treatment in October 2013. (If an additional examination, to include tele-health interview, is deemed necessary, such should be arranged). Based on review of the record, the opinion provider should provide opinions with detailed rationale that respond to the following: (a) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran has an "additional disability" caused by VA treatment? If so, the additional disabilities should be clearly identified. The term "additional disability" means any condition that did not exist immediately before the VA treatment. The examiner must compare the Veteran's condition immediately before and after the treatment. In clarifying whether the Veteran has an additional disability, the Board asks that the opinion provider address the diagnosis in the November 2020 examination report that the Veteran has a Group XIX muscle injury. If there is no "additional disability," then the opinion provider does not need to provide answers to (b) and (c) but must explain why the symptoms the Veteran contends constitute an "additional disability" are not additional disability caused by the VA treatment. (b) If the Veteran has an additional disability caused by VA treatment, then is it at least as likely as not that the proximate cause of such disability or disabilities is carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment or similar instance of fault on the part of VA? In determining whether the proximate cause of a disability was the result of carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or similar instance of fault on the part of VA in furnishing treatment, discuss if VA failed to exercise the degree of care that is expected of a reasonable health care provider. (c) If the Veteran has an additional disability caused by the VA treatment, then is it at least as likely as not that the proximate cause of the disability was an event not reasonably foreseeable? The opinion provider must provide a comprehensive report including complete rationales for all opinions and conclusions reached, citing the objective medical findings leading to the conclusions. 3. If upon completion of the above action the issue remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Matta, 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.