Citation Nr: 21013376
Decision Date: 03/09/21	Archive Date: 03/09/21

DOCKET NO. 17-28 413A
DATE: March 9, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for a prostate disorder is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran had periods of active service from June 1967 to June 1970 and from April 1971 to April 1988.

This current matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2015 rating decision.  The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in June 2019.  The Board previously remanded this appeal in August 2019 and September 2020.

Service connection for a prostate disorder

The most recent VA opinion relies, in part, on the Veteran’s lack of symptoms prior to 2010.  Yet, the record indicates that the Veteran was diagnosed with an enlarged prostate in August 2000.  Consequently, an addendum opinion is required in order to address the evidence of prostate related symptoms a decade earlier than the examiner appears to have contemplated. 

Additionally, it appears that, when the Veteran initially claimed service connection for his prostate condition, it was originally developed as a claim secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus type 2 (diabetes).  However, this theory of entitlement has not been adequately addressed by a VA opinion.  Although this particular aspect of the appeal has not been recently addressed by the Veteran or his attorney, including at the June 2019 hearing, the fact remains that it has been raised (albeit at the initiation of the claim) and must, therefore be addressed.

Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the following actions:

Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s prostate condition (1) began during service; (2) is at least as likely as not related to his service, to include his in-service exposure to tactical herbicide agents; and (3) is at least as likely as not proximately due to service-connected diabetes or aggravated beyond its natural progression by the service-connected diabetes.  

A complete rationale should be provided as to each opinion.  

With respect to the question of the Veteran’s prostate condition’s relationship to exposure to tactical herbicide agents during service, the clinician may not rely solely on a lack of a legally or regulatory presumptive relationship between non-malignant prostate conditions and exposure to tactical herbicide agents.  Indeed, the clinician’s attention is directed to the August 2000 finding of an enlarged prostate in the Veteran’s medical records.  The clinician should address whether the appearance of this symptom a decade prior to the date of the Veteran 

(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

reporting symptoms indicates that this condition is at least as likely as not related to the Veteran’s service, including his conceded in-service exposure to tactical herbicide agents. 

 

THERESA M. CATINO

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Steven H. Johnston, 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.