Citation Nr: 1716319 Decision Date: 05/15/17 Archive Date: 05/22/17 DOCKET NO. 16-26 434 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia THE ISSUE Entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent for service-connected residuals of bladder neck resection status post contracture. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Ware, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from June 1956 to April 1958. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2011 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia. This appeal was processed using the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS). The Virtual VA electronic claims file contains documents that are either duplicative of the records in VBMS or irrelevant to the issue on appeal. This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2016). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2014). The appeal is REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The Board finds that a remand is required for another VA examination. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claims so that the Veteran is afforded every possible consideration. The Veteran was last afforded a VA examination with regard to his claim in April 2014. However, the Board notes that the Veteran's lay assertions as well as the private medical records submitted after the April 2014 VA examination reflect a possible increase in severity of the Veteran's bladder condition. Therefore, the Board finds a new examination is warranted. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: (This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). Expedited handling is requested.) 1. The AOJ should request that the Veteran provide the names and addresses of any and all health care providers who have provided treatment for a bladder condition. After acquiring this information and obtaining any necessary authorization, the AOJ should obtain and associate these records with the claims file. The AOJ should also secure any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. After completing the foregoing development, the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of his service-connected residuals of bladder neck resection status post contracture. Any and all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. The claims file must be made available to the examiner for review in conjunction with the examination. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file, including the Veteran's post-service medical records, prior VA examination reports, and lay statements and assertions. All pertinent symptomatology and findings must be reported in detail. The examiner should specifically delineate all signs and symptoms associated with the appellant's service-connected residuals of bladder neck resection status post contracture. In particular, the examiner should specifically address the Veteran's voiding dysfunction as urine leakage, urinary frequency, or obstructed voiding. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary in this case, he or she should clearly explain so in the report. The examiner must also comment on any malignant neoplasm of the genitourinary system. The examiner should also ascertain whether bilateral hydronephrosis and other diagnosed bladder conditions of record are manifestations of the Veteran's service-connected residuals of bladder neck resection status post contracture. The examiner should address the Veteran's lay assertions that he will have to wear pads for the remainder of his life and of pain and oozing with urination. In rendering the requested opinions, the examiner should note that the Veteran is competent to attest to matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, including observable symptomatology. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. A clear and complete rationale for any opinions or conclusions expressed should be provided and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. As it is important "that each disability be viewed in relation to its history[,]" 38 C.F.R. § 4.1, copies of all pertinent records in the Veterans' claims file, or, in the alternative, the entire claims file, must be made available to the examiner for review. 3. After completing these actions, the AOJ should conduct any other development as may be indicated by a response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs. 4. When the development requested has been completed, the case should be reviewed by the AOJ on the basis of the additional evidence. If the benefits sought on appeal are 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 Veteran 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 2014). _________________________________________________ ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR. Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2014), 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) (2016).