Citation Nr: 20004100 Decision Date: 01/16/20 Archive Date: 01/16/20 DOCKET NO. 19-34 231 DATE: January 16, 2020 ORDER A 20 percent rating, but no higher, for seminal vesiculectomy is granted, subject to the laws and regulations governing the payment of monetary benefits. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active service from August 1956 to August 1976. 2. A genitourinary disability has been manifested by subjective complaints of urinary frequency and urgency; objective findings include the use of absorbent underwear and awakening 4 times a night to void. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a 20 percent rating, but no more, for seminal vesiculectomy have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103(a), 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.115a, 4.115b, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7529 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings which is based on average impairment of earning capacity. Generally, the degrees of disability specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbations or illnesses proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The Veteran has been rated at a non-compensable rating under § 4.115a for dysfunctions of the genitourinary system since 1979 as he has been diagnosed with seminal vesiculectomy but no compensable symptoms. Under DC 7529, benign neoplasms of the genitourinary system are rated under the criteria for voiding dysfunction or renal dysfunction, whichever is predominant. The medical evidence shows a history of urinary frequency, urgency, and the use of absorbent underwear briefs due to urgency incontinence. The evidence does not support a finding of renal dysfunction. As such, the Veteran’s disability will be rated under the criteria for urinary frequency under voiding dysfunction. In order to warrant a higher rating, the evidence must show: • Daytime voiding interval between two and three hours, or; awakening to void two times per night (10 percent); • Daytime voiding interval between one and two hours, or; awakening to void three to four times per night (20 percent); or • Daytime voiding interval less than one hour, or; awakening to void five or more times per night (40 percent). In a March 2018 VA examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran did not have a voiding dysfunction. The examiner left the rest of the questions related to voiding dysfunction blank, including those regarding urinary frequency and urgency. This evidence does not support a claim for a higher rating. On the other hand, a private physician submitted a June 2018 letter stating that the Veteran had problems with urinary frequency and urgency which required him to get up at least 4 times during the night to void. In addition, the Veteran used absorbent underwear due to his urgency. Further, the VA treatment notes dating back to 2017 make multiple references to urinary frequency, urgency, difficulty with retention, and nocturia. On balance, the medical evidence shows that the Veteran’s symptomatology most closely resembles the criteria for a 20 percent rating. To that end, the private physician and clinical records supports nighttime voiding at least 4 times per night. As such, a rating of 20 percent is warranted. A higher rating of 40 percent is not warranted as the medical evidence does not support a daytime voiding interval less than one hour or awakening to void five or more times per night. Therefore, the medical evidence supports a 20 percent rating, but no more. In granting a higher rating, the Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements regarding his symptomatology. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board’s consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Kokolas, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.