Citation Nr: 20005876 Decision Date: 01/23/20 Archive Date: 01/23/20 DOCKET NO. 15-17 805 DATE: January 23, 2020 ORDER New and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction (ED), to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II. To this extent, the claim, is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for ED, to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II, is remanded. FINDING OF FACT 1. A January 2010 rating decision reopened and denied service connection for ED. 2. The evidence added to the record since the January 2010 rating decision is not cumulative of the evidence previously considered, contributes to a more complete picture of the claim and creates a reasonable possibility of an allowance of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. The January 2010 rating decision that denied service connection of ED is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. 2. New and material evidence has been received since the January 2010 rating decision to reopen the claim of service connection for ED. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107; 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1967 to January 1970. Whether new and material evidence has been received for a claim for service connection for ED, to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II. The Veteran seeks to reopen a claim of service connection for ED. Service connection for ED as secondary to service-connected diabetes was denied in a September 2008 rating decision because there was no evidence of nexus. A January 2010 rating decision reopened the claim and denied it on the merits because the evidence did not establish that that the Veteran’s ED was proximately due to his service-connected diabetes mellitus or otherwise related to service. The Veteran did not appeal the January 2010 determination, and new and material evidence was not received within one year of the decision. Therefore, that rating decision became final. In the December 2013 rating decision on appeal, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) reopened the claim and denied it on the merits; however the question before the Board is whether new and material evidence has been submitted. Evidence of record at the time of the January 2010 decision includes, service treatment records, VA and private treatment records, and the January 2006 and February 2007 VA examinations. Evidence submitted after the January 2010 decision includes updated VA and private treatment records, an article titled, “Diabetes and Potency,” statements from the Veteran and March 2013 and August 2018 VA examinations. The Board finds this evidence is “new” in that it had not been previously submitted. Moreover, the evidence, specifically the article excerpt submitted by the Veteran, is “material.” The Veteran’s reports coupled with the article, and the March 2018 VA examination indicate a potential nexus between his ED and his service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II. The evidence is neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the January 2010 rating decision and raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156; Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). De novo consideration of the claim is addressed in the remand below. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for ED, to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes, is remanded. Medical records obtained to date are inadequate; the claim is remanded to obtain a new opinion. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). A March 2018 VA examination included a positive opinion but no rationale. In contrast, the August 2018 VA examiner indicated ED was not a complication of diabetes, without any accompanying rationale, or reference to the March 2018 VA examination stating otherwise. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any of the Veteran’s update VA and private treatment records. 2. After the completion of the above, forward copies of all pertinent records to an appropriate clinician to determine the likely nature and etiology of the Veteran’s ED. If the clinician determines that an opinion can’t be provided without an examination, one should be scheduled. Based on a review of the record, and examination if needed, the examiner should address the following: (a) Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s ED is proximately due to his diabetes? (b) If the answer to (a) is no, is it at least as likely as not that the ED is aggravated (defined as any increase in disability) by the diabetes? In answering this question, the examiner should discuss the impact, if any, of medications prescribed for the diabetes. The examiner must explain the rationale for all opinions in detail, citing to supporting clinical data and/or medical literature, as appropriate. If an opinion cannot be provided, the examiner should indicate why. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Williams 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.