Citation Nr: 18143396 Decision Date: 10/19/18 Archive Date: 10/18/18 DOCKET NO. 16-41 896 DATE: October 19, 2018 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. The issue of entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by a urinary problem, to include a prostate disability, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1956 to July 1959. 1. The issue of entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. A review of the claims file confirms the Veteran has been diagnosed with hypertension. See January 2004 VA Internal Medicine Outpatient Note. He asserts the diagnosis stems from the stressors of his duties as a cannoneer, going to the firing range and participating in firing missions in service. October 2013 Notice of Disagreement. Despite the foregoing, he has yet to be afforded a VA examination with respect to this claim. As the McLendon elements necessitating an examination have been met, a remand is necessary to obtain one. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). 2. The issue of entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by a urinary problem, to include a prostate disability, is remanded. In furtherance of this claim, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in July 2016. July 2016 Male Reproductive System Conditions VA Examination Report. Upon examination, the VA examiner determined there were no current prostate diagnoses. Although a review of the remainder of the claims file is negative for any current diagnoses of a prostate condition, the Board notes he has been diagnosed with urinary leakage during the pendency of this appeal. See August 2015 VA Internal Medicine Outpatient Note. While he has characterized the claim as a service connection claim for a prostate condition, he has consistently described his current symptoms as consistent with urinary issues. See February 2012 Statement in Support of Claim; September 2013 Notice of Disagreement; April 2016 Letter from the Veteran. Consequently, the Board has re-characterized the issue as a service connection claim for a disability manifested by a urinary problem. See Clemons vs. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). Given the foregoing, the Board finds a remand is necessary for another VA examination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran to determine if there are any relevant, outstanding private treatment records. If so, undertake all appropriate development necessary to obtain these records from each treatment provider and/or facility identified by him. 2. Obtain all relevant, outstanding VA treatment records. 3. Once the first two requests have been completed, to the extent possible, schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate medical professional to determine the current nature and etiology of his claimed hypertension. After reviewing the claims file, the examiner should: (a.) Opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) the Veteran’s hypertension was caused by or is otherwise related to his active duty service, to include the stressors of his duties as a cannoneer, going to the firing range and participating in firing missions, and explain why. (b.) In rendering an opinion, the examiner should consider and weigh the Veteran’s relevant lay statements of record. 4. Once the first two requests have been completed to the extent possible, schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate medical professional to determine the current nature and etiology of his claimed disability manifested by a urinary problem. After reviewing the claims file, the examiner should: (a.) Identify all current and prior diagnoses of a urinary condition, to include urinary leakage and hematuria. (b.) Reconcile all prior diagnoses with the current findings. For any prior diagnosis that cannot be reconciled with the current findings, explain why. (c.) As to each current diagnosis and any prior diagnosis that cannot be reconciled with the current findings, opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) caused by or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s active duty service, to include his diagnosis of urethritis in service, and explain why. (d.) In rendering an opinion, the examiner should consider the relevant treatment records, to include a January 2004 VA Internal Medicine Outpatient Note documenting an assessment of hematuria and an August 2015 VA Internal Outpatient Note indicating an assessment of urine leakage. (e.) In rendering an opinion, the examiner should consider and weigh the Veteran’s relevant lay statements of record, to include his February 2012 Statement in Support of Claim, September 2013 Notice of Disagreement and April 2016 letter. 5. Once the above requests have been completed, to the extent possible, readjudicate the appeal. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD G. Suh, Associate Counsel