Citation Nr: 20009962 Decision Date: 02/06/20 Archive Date: 02/05/20 DOCKET NO. 17-29 680 DATE: February 6, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a gallbladder disability is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for a tooth and gum disability is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot arthritis is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for interstitial cystitis and benign prostatic hypertrophy is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At the October 2019 Board hearing, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran withdrew his claims of entitlement to service connection for a gallbladder disability, a tooth and gum disability, and bilateral foot arthritis. 2. The Veteran’s interstitial cystitis and benign prostatic hypertrophy is related to his military service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the Veteran have been met as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for a gallbladder disability. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the Veteran have been met as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for a tooth and gum disability. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 3. The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the Veteran have been met as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot arthritis. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 4. The criteria for service connection for interstitial cystitis and benign prostatic hypertrophy have been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active military service from August 1971 to April 1992. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. In October 2019, the Veteran and his wife testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a videoconference Board hearing in regard to his current claims on appeal. A transcript of the hearing is included with the claims file. Withdrawal The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. Id. In this case, at the hearing with the undersigned the Veteran withdrew his appeal as to the issues of entitlement to service connection for a gallbladder disability, tooth and gum disability, and bilateral foot arthritis. The withdrawal request was discussed prior to the hearing and was acknowledged on the record. The withdrawal request was explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences. As there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration regarding the issues of entitlement to service connection for a gallbladder disability, tooth and gum disability, and bilateral foot arthritis, the Board does not have jurisdiction over these issues and they are dismissed. Service Connection Generally, to establish service connection, a claimant must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service, the so-called “nexus” requirement. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Interstitial Cystitis with Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy The Veteran asserts that he has interstitial cystitis and benign prostatic hypertrophy that is related to his period of active service. Service treatment records reveal that in June 1985 the Veteran reported urethral discharge, dysuria, and urinary frequency issues. He was tested for venereal disease at that time. In a report of medical history in February 1988, the Veteran endorsed frequent or painful urination as well as contracting a venereal disease. In March 1988, the Veteran reported dysuria and was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection. During his hearing, the Veteran testified that during service he had painful urination, blood in his urine, and difficulty urinating. His wife, whom he married during service, testified that he had similar problems since his time in service that continued to get worse. In a March 2017 VA medical opinion, the examiner indicated that he was not able to offer an etiological opinion without resorting to speculation with regard to the Veteran’s diagnosed interstitial cystitis and benign prostatic hypertrophy. In a December 2019 private medical opinion, a registered nurse opined that the Veteran’s interstitial cystitis and benign prostatic hypertrophy is more likely than not related to his active service. In reaching this conclusion, the nurse found it significant that the Veteran experienced the onset of his current symptoms during active service when he contracted a venereal disease. According to the nurse, as a result of the venereal disease the Veteran experienced a long history of voiding dysfunction, to include difficulty urinating, frequent and urgent need to urinate, inability to empty bladder, nocturia, urinary tract infections, erectile dysfunction, and frequent and painful urination. The nurse also found it significant that the Veteran experienced kidney stones and blood clots a few months following his separation from service in 1992, and that these symptoms resulted in several cystourethroscopies. As the nurse offered an opinion with consideration of the relevant history and provided a rationale for the conclusion reached, the opinion is found to be probative. (Continued on the next page.) The most probative evidence indicates the Veteran has interstitial cystitis and benign prostatic hypertrophy that is related to his active service. Therefore, service connection is granted. Nathan Kroes Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Christopher O'Donnell 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.