Citation Nr: 21014642 Decision Date: 03/15/21 Archive Date: 03/15/21 DOCKET NO. 14-39 593 DATE: March 15, 2021 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of vasectomy is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from July 1987 to January 2000, and from April 2000 to January 2011. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a September 2011 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The Board remanded the instant issue for issuance of a Supplemental Statement of the Case in March 2019. Service treatment records reflect the Veteran’s report of having undergone a vasectomy in 2004. On report of medical history in June 2008, the Veteran indicated that he experienced inflammation of his testicles following vasectomy in 2004. In July 2010, he reported that he was seen by an emergency department for testicular pain. The issue of whether service connection is warranted for any vasectomy residuals is complicated by the Veteran’s history of prostate cancer and radical prostatectomy in 2012. Given the complexity of the Veteran’s genitourinary history, the Board concludes that it is unable to make a determination as to the instant claim without first obtaining an opinion regarding whether there are residuals of vasectomy that are separate and distinct from symptoms caused by prostate cancer and its treatment. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed vasectomy residuals. The evidentiary record, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examination report must include a notation that this record review took place. After the record review and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should identify all relevant diagnoses and conditions referable to the Veteran’s genitourinary system. The examiner should then provide an opinion regarding whether it is at least as likely as not that any such condition is related to the Veteran’s vasectomy conducted during service. In rendering this opinion, the examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history. Such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports, he or she must provide an explanation for such rejection. The examiner is not to improperly discount the Veteran’s lay statements or mistakenly rely on an absence of medical evidence in the record to support his or her conclusions. The complete rationale for all opinions should be set forth, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. If an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner must provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered. In so doing, the examiner must explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question. 2. Then, readjudicate the Veteran’s claim, with application of all appropriate laws, regulations, and case law, and consideration of any additional information obtained as a result of this remand. If the decision remains adverse to the Veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and afforded an appropriate period within which to respond thereto. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Barone, 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.