Citation Nr: 22018745 Decision Date: 03/30/22 Archive Date: 03/30/22 DOCKET NO. 18-38 351 DATE: March 30, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for depression is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a prostate condition, as due to exposure to herbicide agents or secondary to service-connected hemorrhoids with proctitis, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1966 to August 1969, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2020, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. In March 2020, the Board remanded these matters for additional development. In January 2021, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for depression and for a prostate condition and remanded the issue of entitlement to service connection for hypertension. The Veteran appealed the Board's denial of service connection for depression and a prostate condition to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a November 2021 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (Joint Motion), the parties requested that the Court vacate and remand the portion of the January 2021 Board decision that denied service connection for depression and for a prostate condition. In a November 2021 order, the Court granted the Joint Motion and returned it to the Board for further action consistent with the Joint Motion. This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(b) (2); 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c). 1. Entitlement to service connection for depression 2. Entitlement to service connection for a prostate condition, as due to herbicide agent exposure or secondary to hemorrhoids with proctitis In the Joint Motion, the parties determined that the Board erred by relying on inadequate VA examinations to deny the Veteran's claims. Regarding the claimed depression, the parties determined that the March 2020 VA examination was inadequate because the VA opinion relied primarily on silence in the Veteran's service records to deny the claim; thus, remand to obtain an addendum opinion was warranted. The parties noted that, on remand, the examiner should specifically address the Veteran's lay reports of seeing body bags, witnessing a blown up steam engine and fearing hostile attacks while on a side road that was obscured by tall bamboo grass. Regarding the claimed prostate condition, the parties determined that the July 2020 VA opinion was inadequate to address whether the Veteran's prostate condition was directly related to service, to include due to his presumed herbicide exposure, because the opinion was general in nature and did not pertain to the Veteran's specific circumstances. Further, the August 2020 VA addendum opinion was inadequate because it provided essentially the same general response as the July 2020 opinion. As to secondary service connection, the parties determined that the August 2020 VA opinion was inadequate because it provided the same general response as that provided in the July 2020 opinion and did not address whether the prostate condition was secondary to the service-connected hemorrhoids with proctitis. Thus, in order to adequately address the concerns raised in the Joint Motion, the Board finds that remand to obtain addendum VA opinions addressing the claimed depression and prostate condition are required. Additionally, there may be outstanding Social Security Administration (SSA) records. An entry associated with the claims file in April 2005 indicates that the Veteran began receiving SSA disability benefits in 2005, and the Veteran reported during an April 2015 VA PTSD VA examination that he received social security disability benefits until he turned age 62. The Veteran's SSA records are not associated with the claims file. On remand, SSA records should be requested. Updated treatment records should also be requested. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide the names and addresses of all medical care providers who have recently treated him for his claimed depression and prostate condition. After securing any necessary releases, request any relevant records identified that are not duplicates of those associated with the claims file. In addition, obtain updated VA treatment records since June 2021. If any requested records are unavailable, the claims file should be annotated to reflect such, and the Veteran notified of such. 2. Request from the SSA relevant records pertaining to the Veteran's claim for disability benefits and associate such with the claims file. If the requested records are unavailable, the claims file should be annotated to reflect such, and the Veteran notified of such. 3. After the above development is completed, obtain an addendum opinion from a VA examiner regarding the claimed depression. If a new examination is deemed necessary to respond to the questions presented, one should be scheduled. After reviewing the claims file, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (an approximate balance) that the Veteran's currently diagnosed unspecified depressive disorder manifested in active service or is otherwise related to active service. The examiner must explain why or why not. In rendering the opinion, the examiner must address the Veteran's lay reports of seeing dead bodies and body bags, witnessing a blown up steam engine and fearing hostile attacks while on a side road that was obscured by tall bamboo grass (see January 2020 Board transcript and Veteran's statements in January 2015, August 2016, July 2018 and October 2020). 4. Obtain an addendum opinion from a VA examiner regarding the claimed prostate condition. If a new examination is deemed necessary to respond to the questions presented, one should be scheduled. After reviewing the claims file, the examiner should respond to the following: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (an approximate balance) that the Veteran's current prostate condition (diagnosed as prostate hypertrophy with minimal symptoms and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS)) had its onset during active service or is otherwise related to active service, to include due to the Veteran's presumed in-service herbicide exposure? The examiner must explain why or why not. (b.) If not related to active service, is it at least as likely as not (an approximate balance) that the prostate condition was caused by the service-connected hemorrhoids with proctitis? Please explain why or why not. (c.) If not caused by the service-connected hemorrhoids with proctitis, is it at least as likely as not (an approximate balance) that the prostate condition was worsened (aggravated) beyond natural progression by the service-connected hemorrhoids with proctitis? The examiner should explain why or why not. If so, the examiner should attempt to quantify the level of aggravation beyond the baseline level of the prostate condition. A complete rationale should be provided for all opinions and conclusions expressed. 5. If the claims remain denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. C. Birder 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.