Citation Nr: 21014674 Decision Date: 03/15/21 Archive Date: 03/15/21 DOCKET NO. 17-28 131 DATE: March 15, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a prostate disability to include chronic prostatitis, benign prostatic hypertrophy/hyperplasia (BPH), and lower urinary tract syndromes (LUTS) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from June 1969 to June 1973. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2019, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a Board video conference hearing. 1. Prostate disability to include chronic prostatitis, benign prostatic hypertrophy/hyperplasia and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) As an initial matter, the Board has recharacterized the chronic prostatitis disability claim more broadly as a claim for a prostate disability to include chronic prostatitis, benign prostatic hypertrophy/hyperplasia, and LUTS to better reflect that the Veteran seeks service connection for symptoms regardless of how those symptoms are diagnosed or labeled. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). Specifically, while the Veteran claimed only chronic prostatitis, he testified that he continued to have frequent and painful urination since the 1970s. His medical treatment records reflect past diagnosis of chronic prostatitis and Prostatodynia in the 1980s a current diagnosis of BPH and chronic LUTS. These diagnoses are all associated with symptoms described by the Veteran regarding his claimed chronic prostatitis disability. Having recharacterized the claim, the Board finds that the instructions provided to the VA examiner in the May 2020 Board remand did not request a sufficiently broad opinion to encompass the Veteran’s current diagnosis of BPH and LUTS. As such, a remand is warranted to address the additional diagnosis related to the Veteran’s prostate disabilities. The Board further finds the June 2020 VA medical opinion provided for the Veteran’s chronic prostatitis to be inadequate for adjudication purposes. The VA examiner determined that the Veteran’s symptoms of frequent and burning urination, beginning in 1976, were likely due to a diagnosis of hyperactive striated sphincter and not prostatitis or dysuria from a prostate condition. The VA examiner further stated that his in-service cystitis was unrelated to his post service complaints of prostate conditions starting in 1976 and his eventual diagnosis of BPH. However, the Board finds that the VA medical opinion is conclusory and lacks sufficient rationale. Aside from simply stating that the Veterans prostate or BPH were not related to the Veteran’s in-service treatment of cystitis, no reasoned medical explanation was provided as to why his current prostate disabilities were not related to his in-service treatment for cystitis or UTI. Based on the foregoing, a remand is warranted to obtain an adequate VA medical opinion as to the etiology of the Veteran’s prostate disabilities to include chronic prostatitis, benign prostatic hypertrophy/hyperplasia, and LUTS. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA or private treatment records related to the Veteran’s prostate disability, to include chronic prostatitis, benign prostatic hypertrophy/hyperplasia, and LUTS, and associate them with the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to obtain an opinion addressing the etiology of the Veteran’s prostate disability. The examiner is requested to provide a medical opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that the Veteran’s claimed prostate disabilities, to include chronic prostatitis, benign prostatic hypertrophy/hyperplasia, and LUTS, had its/their onset during service or is/are otherwise related to any in-service injuries, event, or diagnosis. In rendering an opinion, the examiner is requested to consider the Veteran’s hearing testimony, service treatment records that reflect reports of painful and frequent urination since service, and private treatment records from Dr. E.M. at Tufts Medical Center. A complete and detailed rationale for these opinions should be provided for every opinion requested by the examiner. M. Tenner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Xiong, 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.