Citation Nr: 1322005 Decision Date: 07/10/13 Archive Date: 07/18/13 DOCKET NO. 10-20 558 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Lincoln, Nebraska THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy as secondary to the service-connected right orchiectomy (claimed as undescended testicle). 2. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right orchiectomy (claimed as undescended testicle). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran and J.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD F. Yankey, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1975 to June 1976. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Lincoln, Nebraska. The Veteran testified before the undersigned at a September 2010 Video Conference hearing. The hearing transcript is of record. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND During his September 2010 Video Conference hearing, the Veteran reported that there were a lot of things he was unable to do anymore, due to his medical problems, including the neurological symptoms he experienced in his right leg, and indicated that he was not working and was receiving disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA). The record does not reflect that the RO has attempted to obtain a copy of the SSA disability determination for the Veteran or the records upon which the determination was based. Where there has been a determination with regard to SSA benefits, any records concerning that decision that are relevant to the Veteran's claim must be obtained. Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Tetro v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 100, 108-09 (2000); Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363, 372 (1992). The SSA records are relevant to the Veteran's claim because they could contain information as to the onset or aggravation of his claimed right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, including any relationship between the peripheral neuropathy and his service-connected right orchiectomy. As the SSA's disability determination and any related medical records have not yet been associated with the claims file, a remand is necessary to obtain these records. The law provides that VA shall make reasonable efforts to notify a claimant of the evidence necessary to substantiate a claim and requires VA to assist a claimant in obtaining that evidence. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2012). Such assistance includes providing the claimant a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when such an examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision on a claim. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2012). The most recent VA examination in connection with the Veteran's service-connected right orchiectomy was conducted in November 2009. During his September 2010 Video Conference hearing, the Veteran reported that his right orchiectomy had worsened over the previous year. VA's General Counsel has indicated that when a claimant asserts that the severity of a disability has increased since the most recent rating examination, an additional examination is appropriate. VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (April 7, 1995); see also Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994). Given the Veteran's claims of increased symptomatology, a new VA examination is warranted to determine the current severity of the Veteran's service-connected right orchiectomy. The appellant is advised that it is his responsibility to report for the examinations and to cooperate in the development of the case, and that the consequences of failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claims. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158 and 3.655 (2012). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the SSA and obtain a copy of that agency's decision concerning the Veteran's claim for disability benefits, including any medical records used to make the decision. 2. Then, afford the Veteran a VA examination to determine the current severity of his service connected right orchiectomy. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner for review prior to the examination and the examiner should acknowledge such review in the examination report. All tests, studies, or evaluations deemed necessary should be performed, and the results should be reported in detail. The examiner should obtain a full history of the Veteran's relevant symptomatology and assess the current severity of his right testicle disability. 3. When the development requested has been completed, the RO should readjudicate the Veteran's claims on the basis of additional evidence. The RO should also undertake any other development it determines to be indicated. If any benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2012). _________________________________________________ F. JUDGE FLOWERS Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2012).