Citation Nr: 21009686 Decision Date: 02/23/21 Archive Date: 02/23/21 DOCKET NO. 12-33 778A DATE: February 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for left side epididymitis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1966 to August 1968. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2011 rating decision by the Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Veteran presented testimony at a Board hearing in December 2016. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the Veteran’s claims folder. This case was previously before the Board in July 2017, August 2018, and November 2019, on which occasions the claim was remanded. Entitlement to a compensable rating for left side epididymitis is remanded. Upon review of the claims file, the Board has determined that further development is necessary before the claim can be adjudicated.  38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159.  This claim was previously before the Board in November 2019, on which occasion the Board found that an April 2019 VA examination was inadequate for evaluation purposes. In concluding that the examination was inadequate, the Board noted that the November 2019 examiner failed to consider the Veteran’s December 2016 Board hearing testimony wherein he reported that he experienced voiding dysfunction prior to his 2005 prostatectomy. The Board thus remanded the claim for a new examination. In December 2019 the Veteran was afforded another VA male reproductive system disabilities examination. In describing the Veteran’s medical history, the examiner noted the Veteran’s lay testimony that he was treated for a reoccurrence of epididymitis by a non-VA provider. Despite noting the Veteran’s assertion, the examiner ultimately concluded that there was no evidence of a reoccurrence of epididymitis diagnosed by a healthcare provider. (12/27/2019, C&P Exam, p. 3). The Board finds that the December 2019 examination is based on an inaccurate factual premise and is therefore inadequate for evaluation purposes. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993) (“An opinion based upon an inaccurate factual premise has no probative value”). In this regard, the Veteran’s private treatment records indicate that he has a diagnosis of chronic epididymitis, which was noted as being “asymptomatic and stable,” in July 2016. In September 2016 the Veteran began a course of Cipro for epididymitis and continued to take the medication until October 2016. (8/9/2017, Medical Treatment Record, p. 17, 26). As the Veteran’s private treatment records contain a diagnosis of chronic epididymitis and indicate that he was treated with antibiotics for the disorder, the Board finds that the December 2019 examiner made an erroneous finding of fact. Therefore, the Board finds that the opinion is inadequate for evaluation purposes. Thus, a new opinion is necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should obtain copies of VA treatment records for the Veteran’s disabilities from July 2020 to the present. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician addressing the following issues: (a.) Generally speaking, can voiding dysfunction and erectile dysfunction be symptoms of chronic epididymitis? (b.) Is the Veteran’s voiding dysfunction and erectile dysfunction at least as likely as not proximately due to or aggravated beyond its natural progression by his service-connected chronic epididymitis? (If aggravation is found, the examiner should attempt to identify the baseline level of disability prior to such aggravation). In rendering an opinion, the examiner must address the following evidence: i. A February 2005 complaint of symptoms consistent with erectile dysfunction. ii. A July 2005 complaint of urinary frequency and urgency. (Continued on the next page)   iii. A September 2005 diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. iv. The Veteran’s December 2016 Board hearing testimony that he experienced voiding dysfunction prior to his 2005 prostatectomy. Eric S. Leboff Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Glenn, 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.