Citation Nr: 18155851 Decision Date: 12/06/18 Archive Date: 12/06/18 DOCKET NO. 15-01 027 DATE: December 6, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 60 percent for prostate cancer is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for erectile dysfunction is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1968 to December 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from March 2013 and November 2013 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Veteran stated that his service-connected disabilities may have prevented him from working during the appeal period. See October 2018 Informal Hearing Presentation (IHP). Because a TDIU rating is inherent in any claim for an increased rating, see Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009), it has been added as an issue. The November 2013 rating decision on appeal reduced the Veteran’s rating for his prostate cancer from 100 percent disabling to 60 percent, effective February 1, 2014. The Veteran explicitly stated that he did not disagree with the reduction from 100 percent, because he is cancer free. See April 2014 statement. Thus, the issue of the propriety of the reduction is not before the Board. The Veteran discussed several disabilities as associated with his service or service-connected disabilities, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a hearing loss disability. See April 2013 correspondence; April 2014 statement. His representative later noted that at least one of these statements should be interpreted as a claim for benefits. See October 2018 IHP. As for PTSD, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) informed the Veteran that he should contact VA if he wished to file a claim. See December 2013 VA correspondence. If the Veteran would like to apply for benefits related to these disabilities, he should file a formal claim. 1. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 60 percent for prostate cancer is remanded. Pursuant to Diagnostic Code (Code) 7528, the only the way the Veteran can receive a higher rating is by demonstrating certain criteria for renal dysfunction; he cannot receive a rating in excess of 60 percent based on voiding dysfunction (to include urine leakage, urinary frequency, and obstructed voiding). See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.115a, 4115b. The only VA examination of record does not discuss whether the Veteran presents any symptoms meeting the criteria for renal dysfunction. See January 2013 VA examination. Thus, remand for a new VA examination is necessary. 2. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for erectile dysfunction. To be entitled to a compensable rating, the Veteran must demonstrate penile deformity. 38 C.F.R. § 4.115b, Code 7522. The Veteran has not undergone a VA examination to determine whether he has a penile deformity. See January 2013 VA prostate examination (diagnosing erectile dysfunction). The only statement from the Veteran about whether he has a penile deformity expressed uncertainty. See November 2014 substantive appeal. Because the Veteran will be undergoing a new VA examination for his prostate cancer anyway, the Board finds that remand for a new VA examination is appropriate. 3. Entitlement to TDIU is remanded. The Veteran should be provided the opportunity to complete a VA Form 21-8940, Veteran’s Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, and provide any additional evidence relating to his inability to work during the appeal period. Finally, the Veteran’s representative stated that the Veteran received VA treatment during the appeal period. See October 2018 IHP. Thus, on remand, the Board should obtain all outstanding VA treatment records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should obtain copies of VA treatment records for the Veteran’s disabilities from March 2012 to the present. 2. The AOJ should provide the Veteran appropriate notice of VA’s duties to notify and assist regarding how to substantiate a claim for entitlement to TDIU, to include providing him a VA Form 21-8940. The Veteran should assist in the matter by providing the requested information. 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. The examiner is also requested to respond to the following: Has the Veteran had renal dysfunction as a residual of his prostate cancer at any time during the appeal period (from March 2012)? If yes, the examiner must state whether such dysfunction manifested in: (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. 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 erectile dysfunction. 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, to include whether he has a penile deformity. 5. If upon completion of the above action the issues remain 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