Citation Nr: 20004704 Decision Date: 01/21/20 Archive Date: 01/21/20 DOCKET NO. 09-07 084A DATE: January 21, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent, for stricture of urethra, since September 4, 2014, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Coast Guard from February 1972 to October 1975. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2007 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2017, the Board granted a rating of 20 percent, effective January 16, 2007, and denied a rating in excess of 20 percent beginning September 4, 2014. The Veteran appealed the Board’s November 2017 denial of a rating in excess of 20 percent beginning September 4, 2014 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). Pursuant to a May 2019 Memorandum Decision, the CAVC vacated the Board’s denial and remanded for additional action/adjudication. (Continued on Following Page) Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent, for structure of urethra, since September 4, 2014, is remanded. The Board regrets the delay associated with this remand, particularly as this matter has previously been before the Board. However, based on a review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that a remand is necessary for additional development. In the May 2019 Memorandum Decision, the CAVC found that the Board erred in not addressing “the potential critical tension” between an October 2014 VA examiner’s determinations that: (a) the Veteran has a daytime voiding interval between 1 and 2 hours, and (b) the Veteran experiences inadequate emptying with a need to often return to completely empty within 10 to 15 minutes. Upon review of the October 2014 VA examination, the Board finds that it is unclear whether the Veteran voids twice within a 10-to-15-minute interval, or if it takes the Veteran 10 to 15 minutes to void. See October 2014 VA Urinary Tract Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ). Therefore, a remand is necessary for additional development. Accordingly, the matter is REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate with the Veteran’s claims file any outstanding relevant records, including the Veteran’s VA treatment records from January 2014 to present. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e), any efforts to secure these records MUST be documented in the records and the Veteran informed if any of these records are unable to be secured. 2. After completing the above, and any additional development warranted by the record, obtain an addendum opinion from the examiner who conducted the 2014 examination. The 2014 examiner is asked to clarify the prior determination that the Veteran experiences inadequate emptying with a need to often return to completely empty within 10 to 15 minutes. Specifically, the 2014 examiner is asked to clarify whether the Veteran voids twice within an interval of 10 to 15 minutes, or if it takes 10 to 15 minutes to void. If the 2014 examiner deems it necessary, or if the 2014 examiner is unavailable, document the record and schedule the Veteran for an examination to ascertain the severity of his service-connected stricture of urethra. Regardless, the entire claims file must be provided to and reviewed by the examiner. If the Veteran is afforded an examination, the examiner is instructed to: (a.) Provide a full description of the Veteran’s stricture of urethra condition and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating system. (b.) Elicit information regarding the Veteran’s stricture of urethra condition from February 2014 to current, including: the duration, frequency, and severity of symptoms; treatments utilized; and functional impacts. (c.) With respect to urinary frequency, to the extent possible, the examiner is specifically instructed to determine the Veteran’s voiding interval from February 2014 to current. (d.) In the event the examiner determines that the Veteran has to return to complete voiding, the examiner is specifically instructed to discuss whether such “returns” are continuations of the prior voiding or a separate act of voiding. If the examiner is unable to obtain or provide any of the information or opinions requested above, a thorough explanation as to why such information or opinion cannot be rendered should be provided. 3. The AOJ must review the claims file and ensure that the foregoing development action has been completed in full. If any development action is incomplete, the appropriate corrective action must be implemented. If any report or opinion does not include adequate responses to the specific reports or opinions requested, it must be returned to the providing examiner for corrective action. YVETTE R. WHITE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. T. Martin III, 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.