Citation Nr: 18156017
Decision Date: 12/06/18	Archive Date: 12/06/18

DOCKET NO. 16-52 309
DATE:	December 6, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to a period of temporary total evaluation for convalescence for right open radical nephrectomy under 38 C.F.R. § 4.30 is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from July 1978 to July 1998.  
This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 rating decision by the Regional Office (RO) of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 
1. Temporary Total Evaluation for Convalescence
The Veteran seeks a temporary total evaluation for the surgery and convalescence involving removal of a kidney.  He argues that the kidney removal was the end result of the progression of his service-connected hypertension. Indeed, the RO has granted service connection for removal of the right kidney as secondary to the Veteran’s service-connected hypertension.  However, the medical evidence of record uniformly reflects that the right open radical nephrectomy was performed due to nonservice-connected renal cell carcinoma.  
As the hypertension and kidney disease could very well require rating as a single disability entity, and the Veteran therefore presents a colorable argument (though the Board makes no finding on the merits of the underlying claim), appellate review is frustrated by the apparent conflict between the medical evidence and the RO’s conclusion.  Remand is required for explanation.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1. Review the grant of service connection for status post right open radical nephrectomy and explain the finding that the procedure was due to service-connected hypertension in the apparent absence of medical evidence to better clarify the discrepancy and assist the Board’s review in this case.  
2. Then, upon completion of the above, and any additional development deemed appropriate, readjudicate the remanded issue.  If the benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case.  The case should then be returned to the Board for appellate review if otherwise in order.  
 
 
WILLIAM H. DONNELLY
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	G. A. Ong, Associate Counsel