Citation Nr: 21029887 Decision Date: 05/17/21 Archive Date: 05/17/21 DOCKET NO. 09-45 382 DATE: May 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a prostate disorder, to include as due to herbicide agents or as secondary to service-connected hypertension with kidney failure and history of kidney transplant, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bladder disorder, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents or as secondary to service-connected hypertension with kidney failure and history of kidney transplant, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1965 to May 1967. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a hearing in August 2014. A transcript of the hearing is included in the claims file. The Board previously remanded the remaining matters on appeal in November 2014, September 2017, February 2020, and August 2020. The Veteran is represented by the individual listed above under 38 C.F.R. § 14.630. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a prostate disorder, to include as due to herbicide agents or as secondary to service-connected hypertension with kidney failure and history of kidney transplant, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a bladder disorder, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents or as secondary to service-connected hypertension with kidney failure and history of kidney transplant, is remanded. With regard to the claimed prostate disorder, as noted in the Board's most recent remand, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) was instructed to obtain an etiological opinion that specifically addresses: i) the Veteran's April 1967 in-service diagnosis of prostatitis; ii) the RO's finding in February 2007 that "a review of [the Veteran's private treatment records revealed that he had been treated numerous times for [prostatitis]," and; iii) a July 2012 statement from J.E., the Veteran's pharmacist since 1974, that the Veteran had been treated for prostatitis since, at a minimum, 1974. Moreover, the examiner was asked to consider the February 2008 private medical record listing unspecified prostatitis among the Veteran's diagnoses. The Board noted that, as this diagnosis was obtained after the April 2006 date of claim, the Veteran does have a current diagnosis of prostatitis for VA purposes, which means that an etiological opinion as to prostatitis is needed. As indicated in the February 2021 supplemental statement of the case, the Veteran was not diagnosed with prostatitis on examination in January 2021. The examiner provided an opinion as to whether the Veteran's benign prostatic hypertrophy was less likely than not related to service, to include the prostatitis shown therein. However, no opinion was provided as to the prostatitis diagnosed during the course the pendency of the appeal. The Board again emphasizes that requirement of a "current disability" is satisfied when the claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim, and that a claimant may be granted service connection even though the disability resolves prior to the Secretary's adjudication of the claim. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Once VA undertakes to provide an examination, it is obligated to ensure that the examination is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). Moreover, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held "that a remand by this Court or the Board confers on the veteran or other claimant, as a matter of law, a right to compliance with the remand orders." Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). As such, compliance with the terms of the remand is necessary prior to further appellate review, and if not, "the Board itself errs in failing to ensure compliance." Id. Accordingly, remand for addendum opinion is warranted. Finally, with respect to the claimed bladder disorder, the May 2015 VA examiner determined that the Veteran's recurrent urinary tract infections was due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Because a decision on the remanded issue of entitlement to service connection for a prostate disorder, which includes BPH, could significant impact a decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a bladder disorder, the issues are inextricably intertwined. A remand of this claim is required as well. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician addressing the etiology of the Veteran's prostatitis. The clinician must respond to the following questions: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's prostatitis, which was diagnosed as recently as February 2008 by the Emory Clinic, began in service, was caused by service, or is otherwise related to his military service? Why or why not? In answering the question, the examiner should expressly address: i. The Veteran's April 3, 1967 in-service diagnosis of prostatitis; ii. The RO's finding in February 2007 that "a review of [the Veteran's] private treatment records revealed that [he has] been treated numerous times for [prostatitis]," and; iii. A July 2012 statement from J.E., the Veteran's pharmacist since 1974, that the Veteran has been treated for prostatitis since, at a minimum, 1974. b.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the medications that the Veteran takes for his hypertension, kidney disorder, heart disorder, and thyroid disorder, either singularly or in combination, caused or aggravated his prostatitis, which was diagnosed as recently as February 2008? Why or why not? Aggravation is defined as a worsening beyond the natural progression of the disability. It is emphasized that the requirement of a "current disability" is satisfied when the claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim. Therefore, opinion should still be provided even if the examiner indicates that prostatitis has resolved. A complete rationale must be provided for any opinion offered. ROBERT C. SCHARNBERGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board G. E. Wilkerson, 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.