Citation Nr: 18152203 Decision Date: 11/21/18 Archive Date: 11/21/18 DOCKET NO. 16-38 371 DATE: November 21, 2018 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to an increased rating for prostate cancer residuals, currently rated as 20 percent disabling is remanded. The issue of entitlement to a higher level of special monthly compensation (SMC), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1967 to February 1969. This matter is before the Board following his appeal of a December 2012 rating decision. In October 2013, the Veteran submitted a notice of disagreement (NOD) with the RO’s reduction in his level of SMC. The Board has taken jurisdiction over that claim for the limited purpose of remanding it to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for issuance of a statement of the case (SOC). See 38 C.F.R. § 19.9(c)(codifying Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-41 (1999)). 1. The issue of entitlement to an increased rating for prostate cancer residuals, currently rated as 20 percent disabling, is remanded. The Veteran contends that a rating higher than 20 percent is warranted for his prostate cancer residuals. Prior to adjudication of his claim, the Board finds that further development of the record is necessary. First, the Board finds that efforts should be made to obtain outstanding treatment records. In this regard, the record supports that the Veteran has received private treatment for his urological problems throughout the period on appeal. For example, in February 2012, it was noted that the Veteran had been followed by many different urologists and that he had “been getting all his care with a private urologist.” He also reported treatment with a private primary care provider in 2014. However, there are no private treatment records, urological or otherwise, associated with the claims file. The Board finds that such records are particularly important in light of somewhat varying evidence concerning the nature and severity of the Veteran’s prostate cancer residuals throughout the appeal period. In this regard, during a June 2011 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he had intermittent urinary leakage or incontinence, but that no pad or absorbent material was required. Then, VA treatment records show that the Veteran was prescribed diapers in December 2011 and, in February 2012, he reported that he was going through 4-5 diapers a day due to urinary incontinence. However, subsequent VA treatment records are silent for prescription of diapers. During an August 2014 examination, the Veteran reported requiring absorbent material that required changing less than two times per day and, during a July 2016, he reported that no absorbent material was required. More recently, in November 2017, the Veteran reported that he wore diapers “sometimes” for his incontinence. Given the foregoing, the Board finds that the private treatment records would assist in clarifying the nature and severity of the Veteran’s prostate cancer residuals throughout the period on appeal. Additionally, the Board finds that the Veteran should be provided a new examination on remand. Although the Veteran was last examined just over two years ago, in July 2016, the evidence suggests that his condition may have worsened since that examination. Specifically, more recent treatment notes show the Veteran’s reported use of diapers, which the Veteran reported were not required at the time of the 2016 examination. Thus, remand is necessary for a new examination. See Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 517, 526 (1995) (where the record does not adequately reveal current state of disability, fulfillment of duty to assist requires a contemporaneous medical examination). 2. The issue of entitlement to a higher level of SMC is remanded. In October 2013, the Veteran filed an NOD with the RO’s December 2012 reduction in his level of SMC. As the RO has not, to date, issued an SOC in response, remand of the claim of entitlement to a higher level of SMC for issuance of an SOC is required. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.9(c). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Issue an SOC addressing entitlement to a higher level of SMC. The Veteran is hereby notified that, following the receipt of the SOC concerning that issue, a timely substantive appeal must be filed if appellate review by the Board is desired. If, and only if, a timely substantive appeal is filed, that issue should be returned to the Board for appellate review. 2. Ask the Veteran to identify and authorize VA to obtain any private medical records related to treatment he has received for his prostate cancer residuals, to include urological treatment, since at least as early as 2010. After obtaining any necessary authorization forms from the Veteran, obtain any pertinent records identified and associate them with the claims file. Any negative responses should be in writing and should be associated with the claims file. In addition, obtain any updated and outstanding VA treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 3. After the development requested in item 2 has been completed to the extent possible, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current severity of his prostate cancer residuals. All tests deemed necessary should be conducted and the results reported. S. C. KREMBS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Fagan, Counsel