Citation Nr: 21023492 Decision Date: 04/20/21 Archive Date: 04/20/21 DOCKET NO. 14-17 112 DATE: April 20, 2021 REMAND Entitlement to service connection for residuals of prostate cancer is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from April 1976 to April 1979 and March 1981 to December 1993 including service in Southwest Asia. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a January 2011 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2020 the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) denied the Veteran’s claim of service connection for residuals of prostate cancer. The Veteran appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) that granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) in November 2020. In the November 2020 JMPR, the parties found that a remand was warranted due to a failure of the duty to assist. In January 2020, the Board reached its decision, in part, based upon the Veteran’s available service treatment records (STRs) that showed that the Veteran was diagnosed with prostatitis in 1981 and 1982 with treatment in 1985 and 1988. See January 2020 BVA Decision, p. 10. The parties found that this review was not sufficient, as the “complete service treatment records have not been ordered and are thus not part of the record.” Although the file contains between 200 and 300 pages of service department treatment records through 1993, the parties did not indicate why the records are incomplete. The parties simply ordered that “on remand, the Board should ensure that Appellant’s complete service records have been requested and make as many requests as necessary to obtain the relevant records, and provide Appellant with written notice if efforts to obtain the records are unsuccessful.” See November 2020 CAVC Decision, p. 3 As such, a remand is required to determine if there are any STRs not of record. Furthermore, the Court found that the Board erred due to its reliance on the October 2018 VA medical opinion, as the examiner stated that the Veteran suffered from “acute prostatitis” in service. The parties determined that the Veteran was diagnosed with chronic prostatitis, although a March 1985 clinician’s diagnosis was “prob chronic prostatitis” on one occasion. Id. As such, a remand is warranted for an addendum opinion. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain any outstanding service treatment records. All efforts to do so should be documented. The Veteran must be provided written notice if efforts to obtain the records are unsuccessful. 2. Subsequent to the requested development, schedule an addendum opinion with the October 2018 VA examiner. If unavailable, schedule an addendum opinion with an appropriate clinician. 3. Return the Veteran’s claims file to the examiner who conducted October 2018 VA examination so a supplemental opinion may be provided. If that examiner is no longer available, provide the Veteran’s claims file to a similarly qualified clinician. The entire claims file must be made available to the examiner for review. A new examination is only required if deemed necessary by the examiner. The examiner is asked to opine first whether the Veteran’s episodes of prostatitis in service represented an acute or chronic disease and why. Attention is called to the March 1985 notation of “prob chronic prostatitis.” The examiner is also asked to opine whether it is as likely as not (at least 50 percent possibility) that the Veteran’s current residuals of prostate cancer first manifested in service as acute or chronic prostatitis or were caused by the episodes of prostatitis in service or by his work applying chemical agent resistant coatings (CARC paint) to vehicles in service. The examiner must provide all findings, along with a complete rationale for his or her opinion(s). If the above requested opinion cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner must state this and provide a rationale for such a conclusion. 4. After completing the above, readjudicate the Veteran’s claims based on the entirety of the evidence. J.W. FRANCIS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board P. Abels, 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.