Citation Nr: 1332396 Decision Date: 10/18/13 Archive Date: 10/24/13 DOCKET NO. 06-32 712 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston, Texas THE ISSUE Entitlement to a compensable rating for a right varicocele. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran and his wife ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD David Gratz, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1967 to July 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2006 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas, which continued the Veteran's noncompensable rating for a right varicocele. In May 2009, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. The Board remanded the Veteran's claim for entitlement to a compensable rating for a right varicocele in August 2009. The Board then denied the Veteran's claim in an August 2011 decision. Thereafter, the Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a February 2013 Memorandum Decision, the Court vacated the August 2011 decision as to that issue. The issue returns to the Board for further consideration. This appeal was processed using the VA paperless claims processing system. Accordingly, any future consideration of this appellant's case should take into consideration the existence of this electronic record. This appeal is REMANDED to the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND In an August 2013 letter signed by the Veteran, his wife stated that his condition continues to deteriorate. VA last provided the Veteran with an examination of his right varicocele in February 2010; that examination is now more than 31/2 years old. As such, the evidence indicates that the disability has increased in severity since the last examination and VA is required to afford him a contemporaneous VA examination to assess the current nature, extent, and severity of his right varicocele disability. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 181 (2007); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994); see also VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995), 60 Fed. Reg. 43186 (1995). The Veteran should be given an opportunity to identify any healthcare provider who has treated him for his right varicocele since September 2012. Thereafter, any identified records that are not already included in the claims file should be obtained for consideration in the appeal. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Veteran should be given an opportunity to identify any healthcare provider who treated him for his service-connected right varicocele since September 2012. After securing any necessary authorization, obtain all identified treatment records together with any more current VA right varicocele records. All reasonable attempts should be made to obtain such records. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, that should be documented and the Veteran allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to ascertain the level of impairment of the right varicocele. The claims file should be made available for review of the Veteran's pertinent medical history. The examiner should make findings regarding the symptoms caused by the Veteran's right varicocele, and their severity. The examiner should specifically address the severity of any weakness and fatigue in the Veteran's lower extremities caused or aggravated by his right varicocele. To the extent possible, the examiner should provide an opinion concerning the impact of the service-connected right varicocele on the Veteran's ability to work and his activities of daily living. The rationale for all opinions expressed should also be provided. 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the Veteran's claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the claim remains denied, the appellant and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the outcome of this case. The Veteran need take no action until so informed. The purpose of this REMAND is to ensure compliance with due process considerations. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter 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). _________________________________________________ MICHAEL E. KILCOYNE 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).