Citation Nr: 18158828 Decision Date: 12/18/18 Archive Date: 12/17/18 DOCKET NO. 17-20 472 DATE: December 18, 2018 ORDER New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for service connection for acute cystitis and, to that extent only, the appeal is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for acute cystitis on the merits is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. An October 2011 rating decision denied the claim for service connection for acute cystitis on the merits; the Veteran did not appeal that decision or submit new and material evidence during the appeal period and that decision is final. 2. Some of the evidence received since the October 2011 final denial is new and relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim for service connection for acute cystitis. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The criteria to reopen the claim for service connection for acute cystitis have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1946 to March 1947. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a February 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2018). 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2) (2012). A June 2017 rating decision granted the claim for entitlement to service connection for gastritis (previously claimed as gastroesophageal reflux and gastroenteritis) during the pendency of the appeal. Hence, the appeal on that issue has been granted and is no longer before the Board. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for service connection for acute cystitis Generally, if a claim of entitlement to service connection has been previously denied and that decision became final, the claim can be reopened and reconsidered only if new and material evidence is presented with respect to that claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2018). New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to VA. Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2018). New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. Id. The threshold to reopen a claim is low. See Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). For the purpose of establishing whether new and material evidence has been received, the credibility of the evidence, but not its weight, is to be presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). An August 1998 decision denied the claim for acute cystitis as there was no residual disability noted. The Veteran did not appeal that decision or submit new and material evidence within the appeal period. Thus, the decision is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(b), 20.302, 20.1103 (2018); see also, Bond v. Shinseki, 659 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 251-52 (2010). In an October 2011 rating decision, the RO included the cystitis as part of the gastrointestinal claim, and denied the claim due to lack of a causal relationship between the current gastrointestinal disability and the treatment for gastritis or cystitis in service. The Veteran did not appeal that decision or submit new and material evidence within the appeal period and the decision is final. Id. Evidence added to the record since the October 2011 denial includes a diagnosis for a current genitourinary condition; specifically, benign prostatic hypertrophy. This evidence relates to the basis for the previous denial of cystis, that is, a current disability. As the threshold to reopen claims is low, the Board finds that new and material evidence has been submitted, and the claim is reopened. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for acute cystitis The Veteran contends that he has a residual disability from the acute cystitis treated in service. The Board notes that the Veteran’s primary care physician and an October 2015 VA examiner indicate that the Veteran has benign prostatic hypertrophy resulting in urinary symptoms. The Veteran’s wife, in a report of contact, asserts a 2013 letter from Dr. Faney linked his current conditions to service. However, that letter is not of record. On remand, the Veteran should be asked to provide another copy of that letter. In addition, the Board finds that an additional medical opinion is needed to address this claim. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide the names and addresses of all medical care providers who have treated his claimed cystitis and urinary conditions, to include Dr. Faney. After securing any necessary releases, request any relevant records identified. In addition, ask the Veteran and his representative to submit a copy of the 2013 letter from Dr. Faney. If any requested records are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified of such. 2. Send the claims file to an appropriate VA examiner to obtain an addendum opinion. If a new examination is deemed necessary to respond to the question presented, one should be scheduled. Following review of the claims file, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s current benign prostatic hypertrophy is a maturation of or related to the in-service cystitis. The examiner should explain why or why not. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Asare, Associate Counsel