Citation Nr: 1328481 Decision Date: 09/06/13 Archive Date: 09/16/13 DOCKET NO. 10-08 392A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for an urological condition. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Florida Department of Veterans Affairs WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD H.J. Baucom, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from June 1983 to October 2007. This matter initially arose before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of an March 2009 rating decision by the RO. In February 2013, the Veteran testified at a hearing held at the RO before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge; the transcript is of record. At the February 2013 hearing, the Veteran stated that he wished to withdraw his appeal as to the issues involving an overpayment and effective date referable to dependency, an increased rating for the service-connected degenerative joint disease of the shoulders and knees, and an increased rating for the service-connected spinal disability. A Substantive Appeal may be withdrawn by the Veteran at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(b). As the Veteran withdrew his appeal as to the identified issues the Board has no jurisdiction to review those matters at this time. The Veteran's virtual VA file has been reviewed. FINDING OF FACT The currently demonstrated urological condition manifested by interstitial cystitis, is shown as likely as not to have had its clinical onset during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW By extending the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, his urological disability manifested by interstitial cystitis is due to disease or injury that was incurred in active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2012). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Service connection will be granted if it is shown that the veteran suffers from a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty, during active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Disorders diagnosed after discharge will still be service connected if all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d); see also Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1994). To establish service connection, there must be a competent diagnosis of a current disability; medical or, in certain cases, lay evidence of in-service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and competent evidence of a nexus between an in-service injury or disease and the current disability. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 252 (1999); see Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Competent medical evidence is evidence provided by a person who is qualified through education, training, or experience to offer medical diagnoses, statements, or opinions. Competent medical evidence may also include statements conveying sound medical principles found in medical treatises. It also includes statements contained in authoritative writings, such as medical and scientific articles and research reports or analyses. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(1). Competent lay evidence is any evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience. Lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). This may include some medical matters, such as describing symptoms or relating a contemporaneous medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded the claimant. The Veteran testified at the recent hearing that the symptoms of his current urological condition began in service. The Veteran is competent to report his symptomatology, and the Board finds his testimony to be credible. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). A VA examination in March 2009 noted that the Veteran reported having the onset of urinary symptoms in August 2006 during service. The diagnoses at that time included that of subject urinary dysfunction without objective findings to support a diagnosis. In a February 2010 note, the Veteran's treating urologist opined that the Veteran' interstitial cystitis existed prior to his separation from service in 2007. He explained that, when the Veteran was diagnosed with benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) at the time of his retirement examination, it was a misdiagnosis and that he had interstitial cystitis at that time. A VA examination in October 2011 noted that the Veteran had a diagnosis of interstitial cystitis after military service. The examiner opined that it was less likely than not that this was caused by or the result of service because the medical records were silent for this condition and there was no nexus between benign prostatic hypertrophy and interstitial cystitis. In light of the favorable determination, there is no need to discuss all the evidence of record. Pieces of evidence, not explicitly discussed herein, have not been overlooked. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000). Based on a review of the entire record, the Board finds the evidence to be in relative equipoise in showing that the Veteran's current urological disability manifested by interstitial cystitis as likely as not had its clinical onset prior the Veteran's retirement from active service. In resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, service connection is warranted. To the extent that this action is favorable to the Veteran, a discussion of VCAA is not required at this time. ORDER Service connection for a urological disability manifested by interstitial cystitis is granted. ____________________________________________ STEPHEN L. WILKINS Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs