Citation Nr: 1325706 Decision Date: 08/14/13 Archive Date: 08/16/13 DOCKET NO. 11-12 622 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania THE ISSUE Entitlement to a disability rating higher than 20 percent for residuals of prostate cancer. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: West Virginia Division of Veterans Affairs WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. B. Mays, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from December 1967 to December 1970. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In July 2011, the Veteran testified before the undersigned at a videoconference hearing. A copy of the hearing transcript is of record. During this VA hearing, the Veteran confirmed that he was retired from work. This case accordingly does not raise a claim of entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability resulting from service-connected disability (TDIU). See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009) (when entitlement to a TDIU is raised during the appeal of a rating for a disability, it is part of the claim for benefits for the underlying disability). 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 The Veteran's last VA compensation examination for his service-connected residuals of prostate cancer was conducted in May 2010. During his July 2011 videoconference hearing, the Veteran suggested a worsening of urinary urgency since that examination. He therefore should be afforded a contemporaneous VA examination to assess the current nature, extent and severity of his prostate cancer residuals. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 181 (2007); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); see also VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995), 60 Fed. Reg. 43186 (1995). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. After ensuring that any outstanding evidence is associated with the claims file, schedule the Veteran for a VA genitourinary examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected residuals of prostate cancer. The entire claims file must be provided to the examiner for review. All necessary tests and studies should be accomplished and all clinical findings reported in detail. After a complete review of the claims file, the examiner should respond to the following: a). Indicate whether the Veteran's residuals of prostate cancer are manifested by urinary leakage, and if so, whether he needs to wear absorbent materials and the frequency they must be changed. b). Discuss whether the Veteran's daytime voiding interval is less than one hour, or awakening to void five or more times a night. See July 2011 hearing transcript. c) Indicate whether the residuals of prostate cancer result in obstructive voiding, and if so, to what extent, to include whether there is urinary retention requiring intermittent or continous catheterization. d). Specify whether the residuals of prostate cancer result in renal dysfunction, and if so, to what extent, to include whether he has constant albuminuria with some edema; or definite decrease in kidney function; or hypertension at least 40 percent disabling under DC 7101. THE EXAMINER IS ADVISED that he or she must provide an explanation for any conclusions reached. The Courts have held that the Board must evaluate any medical opinions by review of multiple factors, including but not limited to whether the examiner: conducted a personal interview of the Veteran and review of the claims folder including electronic "Virtual VA" filings; conducted clinical testing and explained findings, and most importantly whether the examiner fully explained his or her findings and opinion. THE EXAMINER IS ALSO ADVISED THAT BY LAW, THE MERE STATEMENT THAT THE CLAIMS FOLDER WAS REVIEWED AND OR THAT THE EXAMINER HAS EXPERTISE IN THE SUBJECT MATTER IS NOT ADEQUATE TO FIND THAT THE EXAMINATION IS SUFFICIENT. 2. Then adjudicate this claim in light of this and all other additional evidence. If the claims are not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, send him and his representative an SSOC and give them an opportunity to submit additional evidence and/or argument in response before returning this claim to the Board for further appellate consideration. 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). _________________________________________________ Vito A. Clementi 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).