Citation Nr: 21005777 Decision Date: 02/02/21 Archive Date: 02/02/21 DOCKET NO. 18-12 367 DATE: February 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for prostate condition, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from July 1963 to April 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in a May 2019 hearing. The Board remanded the matter for further development in September 2019 and November 2020. It has come back before the Board for adjudication. 1. Prostate Condition The claim for entitlement to service connection for prostate condition must be remanded for additional development, as the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) has not substantially complied with the Board’s prior remand directives for this claim. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In November 2020, the Board remanded the claim to obtain an addendum to the September 2020 VA medical opinion. In remanding the claim in November 2020, the Board noted that the September 2020 VA medical opinion was inadequate, as it did not provide a sufficient rationale and declined to reference the Veteran’s history and treatment records as requested by the Board in the prior remand. While the record indicates that the AOJ scheduled the Veteran for a new VA examination, the record notes that the VA examination was cancelled. The record does not provide who or why the examination was cancelled. In the December 2020 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), the RO noted the Veteran failed to attend the scheduled VA examination. See December 2020 SSOC. Notably, in the November 2020 remand, the Board specifically directed the AOJ to obtain an addendum to the September 2020 VA medical opinion. An examination was not required. Here, there is no indication of record that a VA examiner reviewed the record and indicated that an examination was necessary in order to provide the requested opinion; in any event, the opinion should have been provided. Thus, it is unclear why the AOJ did not obtain the requested opinion, but only scheduled the Veteran for a new examination. See Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request a VA addendum opinion with a qualified medical professional regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed prostate condition. The claims file must be made available to the examiner, to include a copy of this REMAND. Only arrange for the Veteran to undergo further VA examination, by an appropriate clinician, if one is deemed necessary by the examiner designated to provide these opinions. If new examination is deemed necessary, such should be noted in the record. Even if the Veteran does not report for such an examination, the requested opinions must be provided based upon the existing record. The examiner must be asked to address the following, with all opinions supported by a rationale: (a.) Provide a current (at any point throughout the appeal) diagnosis for any prostate condition; and (b.) The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that any diagnosed condition had its onset during or is otherwise related to any event or injury during active duty, to include conceded herbicide exposure. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Glaeser, 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.