Citation Nr: 21012138 Decision Date: 03/03/21 Archive Date: 03/03/21 DOCKET NO. 17-57 091 DATE: March 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) (claimed as prostate condition), to include as due to exposure to herbicides, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from April 1965 to September 1989, including combat service, and his decorations include the Combat Action Ribbon. When this matter was initially before the Board in September 2019, the Board denied service connection for BPH. The Veteran appealed the Board’s September 2019 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), which in an August 2020 order, granted the parties’ joint motion for remand (JMR), vacating the Board’s September 2020 decision and remanding the case for compliance with the terms of the joint motion. Entitlement to service connection for BPH (claimed as prostate condition), to include as due to exposure to herbicides, is remanded. In the August 2020 joint motion for partial remand, the parties determined that the Board relied on an inadequate VA examination report. Thus, the Board must remand this matter for compliance with the Court’s August 2020 order granting the parties’ joint motion to remand. See, Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998); see also, Forcier v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 414, 425 (2006) (holding that the duty to ensure compliance with the Court’s order extends to the terms of the agreement struck by the parties that forms the basis of the joint motion to remand); cf. McBurney v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 136, 140 (2009) (Board has a duty on remand to ensure compliance with the favorable terms stated in the JMR or explain why the terms will not be fulfilled.). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his benign prostatic hypertrophy. The examiner must review the claims file. If a diagnosis cannot be provided but the Veteran’s condition manifests in symptoms that cause functional impairment, then the examiner should consider them a “disability” for the purpose of providing the requested opinion(s) below. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: Is benign prostatic hypertrophy at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease? Is benign prostatic hypertrophy at least as likely as not proximately due to his service-connected disabilities, to include the aggregate impact of those conditions? Is benign prostatic hypertrophy at least as likely as not aggravated by his service-connected disabilities? Is benign prostatic hypertrophy 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 benin prostatic hypertrophy is not on the list of diseases that are presumptively associated with exposure to herbicide agents. All opinions provided must be thoroughly explained, and a complete and detailed rationale for any conclusions reached should be provided (a bare conclusory statement will be deemed inadequate). It is not sufficient to base an opinion on a mere lack of documentation of complaints in the service or post-service treatment records. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Brian P. Keeley 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.