Citation Nr: 21027138 Decision Date: 05/04/21 Archive Date: 05/04/21 DOCKET NO. 15-14 566 DATE: May 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for urinary frequency, to include as secondary to service-connected hypertension, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1977 to February 1986. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2013 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A Board hearing was held before the undersigned in August 2018. A transcript of the hearing is of record. This matter was previously before the Board in March 2019, March 2020, and November 2020 when it was remanded for further development. Entitlement to service connection for urinary frequency, to include as secondary to service-connected hypertension, is remanded. Although the additional delay is regrettable, the Board finds further development is required before a decision can be made regarding the Veteran's claim. In accordance with the November 2020 Board remand, an addendum opinion addressing the etiology of the Veteran's urinary frequency was obtained. In the January 2021 opinion, a VA examiner opined that the Veteran's urinary frequency was not related to his service, including reports at separation of frequent or painful urination. In support of the opinion, the examiner indicated that there were no service treatment records showing complaints or treatment for frequent urination. The examiner acknowledged that the Veteran reported urinating every 30 to 60 minutes during the day, having a daytime voiding interval between two and three hours, and nighttime voiding of three to four times; however, the examiner indicated that there were no medical records found to substantiate his contentions or show treatment for the condition. However, the Board finds the opinion inadequate. While the examiner noted that the Veteran's separation examination noted frequent or painful urination, she did not adequately explain how the Veteran's reported frequent urination at separation was unrelated to his current complaints of urinary frequency. In addition, in noting that there were no medical records substantiating the Veteran's claims regarding how often he urinates, the examiner failed to adequately consider the Veteran's lay statements regarding observable symptomatology of his urinary frequency condition. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). Thus, the Board finds remand for a new medical opinion is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain a medical opinion from an appropriate medical professional other than the January 2021 VA examiner for the Veteran's urinary frequency claim. The electronic claims file must be made available to the medical professional for review in connection with the request for an opinion. If the medical professional determines that an in-person examination (including via telehealth interview) is needed in order to answer the questions posed, then such should be scheduled. After reviewing the claims file, the medical professional should provide an opinion on the following: Irrespective of the January 2020 VA examination report containing no diagnosis of a bladder or urethra condition, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's urinary frequency is related or attributable to his military service, to include reports made at the separation examination of having frequent or painful urination? The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report observable symptomatology of his urinary frequency condition. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). In addressing this, the medical professional is asked to specifically address the Veteran's report at the January 2020 VA examination that he urinates every 30 to 60 minutes during the day. In addition, the medical professional is asked to specifically address the September 2018 private disability benefits questionnaire that reflects that the Veteran's daytime voiding interval was between two to three hours, and that he had nighttime awakening to void three to four times. The medical professional must fully explain the rationale for any opinion, with citation to supporting clinical data/lay statements, as deemed appropriate. If the medical professional cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, he or she should expressly indicate this and provide supporting rationale as to why an opinion cannot be made without resorting to speculation. M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Jiggetts 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.