Citation Nr: 18145314 Decision Date: 10/26/18 Archive Date: 10/26/18 DOCKET NO. 10-46 111 DATE: October 26, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 60 percent for prostate cancer is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran is unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment due to his service-connected disabilities of prostate cancer and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to TDIU have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.340, 3.341, 4.3, 4.16 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1966 to February 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from October 2009 and June 2010 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This case was most recently remanded in April 2017; it has since been re-assigned to the undersigned. In April 2017, the Board remanded these issues to schedule a Board hearing pursuant to the Veteran’s request in his December 2012 substantive appeal. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) attempted to telephone the Veteran to obtain an updated address and received an address from the Veteran’s son. See May 2017 Report of General Information. Three letters were mailed to the Veteran at the address provided informing him of the date and location of his scheduled Board hearing; although one letter was returned as undelivered, it was not due the address being wrong, but rather there was no mail receptacle. See August 2017 returned mail. The Veteran did not attend his scheduled hearing. The Board finds that the notifications of the scheduled Board hearing were properly sent to the address of record at the time. Thus, the Board considers the Veteran’s request for a hearing to be withdrawn. The Veteran is encouraged to again request a Board hearing if he so wishes. The Veteran did not submit a substantive appeal (VA Form 9) for the issue of entitlement to an increased evaluation for his service-connected PTSD. See June 2014 statement of the case (SOC). Thus, that issue is not before the Board. Entitlement to TDIU. The Veteran meets the schedular criteria for entitlement to TDIU. His private physician, Dr. J. Dauphine, MD, opined that it was “extremely difficult” for the Veteran to work due to his service-connected prostate cancer and PTSD, as the Veteran was incontinent at all times, had a foul odor around his clothing most of the time, and rarely slept more than three to four hours a night. See May 2010 correspondence. A VA psychological examiner stated that chronic sleep impairment was a symptom of the Veteran’s PTSD and that his PTSD caused occupational impairment. See July 2013 VA examination. Although an October 2010 VA prostate examiner noted that the Veteran retired in 2006 due to a non-service-connected back disability, he noted that the Veteran was incontinent and wearing a diaper that was changed five to six times a day. See October 2010. Recently, a private examiner opined that the Veteran’s prostate cancer residuals restricted his activities and functions and again noted he had bladder and bowel incontinence. See April 2018 Housebound Status or Permanent Need for Regular Aid and Attendance Disability Benefits Questionnaire (Housebound DBQ). Because Dr. Dauphine’s opinion is corroborated by other evidence of record, it is given significant probative weight. Thus, the evidence reflects that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities prevent him from securing and following substantially gainful occupation, and TDIU is warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 60 percent for prostate cancer is remanded. The record reflects that the Veteran received Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits. See January 2011 VA psychological examination. The Board is unable to determine that such records are irrelevant to the remaining issue on appeal and thus such records may reasonably contain relevant information. Accordingly, remand is required to obtain his SSA records. See Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Veteran’s most recent VA examination for his prostate cancer occurred in October 2010. Since that time, the record reflects that his disability has worsened. See April 2018 Housebound DBQ (stating that the Veteran’s prostate cancer restricts his activities and functions and that he only leaves his home with assistance). Because it has been eight years since the last VA examination, remand for a contemporaneous examination is required to assess the current severity of his service-connected disability. See Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121 (1991); see also Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997). The Board notes that the only way the Veteran can be assigned a higher schedular rating is pursuant to the criteria for renal dysfunction. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.115a, 4.115b, Diagnostic Code 7528. Thus, the examiner should specifically opine on criteria listed for renal dysfunction rather than voiding dysfunction. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should request directly from the SSA all records, including determinations and medical records, regarding any claim for disability benefits. All attempts to fulfill this development should be documented in the claim file. If the records are unavailable, it should so be noted on the record and the reason for unavailability should be provided. 2. The AOJ should obtain copies of VA treatment records for the Veteran’s disability from May 2018 to the present. 3. After the development in the first two instructions is completed, the AOJ should arrange for an examination of the Veteran to assess the current severity of his service-connected prostate cancer. The examiner must review the entire record (including this remand) in conjunction with the examination and note such review was conducted. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms associated with the Veteran’s disability. In particular, the examiner should opine on the Veteran’s renal dysfunction, to include whether the Veteran has the following symptoms: (i) requiring regular dialysis, or precluding more than sedentary activity from one of the following: persistent edema and albuminuria; or, BUN more than 80mg%; or, creatinine more than 8mg%; or, markedly decreased function of kidney or other organ systems, especially cardiovascular, or (ii) persistent edema and albuminuria with BUN 40 to 80mg%; or, creatinine 4 to 8mg%; or, generalized poor health characterized by lethargy, weakness, anorexia, weight loss, or limitation of exertion. 4. If upon completion of the above action the issue remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Sandler, Associate Counsel