Citation Nr: 20034047 Decision Date: 05/15/20 Archive Date: 05/15/20 DOCKET NO. 09-25 778 DATE: May 15, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable disability rating prior to April 21, 2014, and to an increased rating in excess of 40 percent thereafter, for prostatitis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from August 1972 to September 1974. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2008 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. This case was previously before the Board in August 2016 and August 2017, when it was remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). Additional development is needed before the claim can be decided on the merits Entitlement to a compensable disability rating prior to April 21, 2014, and to an increased rating in excess of 40 percent thereafter, for prostatitis is remanded. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim and to afford him every possible consideration. This case was previously before the Board in August 2017 when it was remanded, in part, to obtain additional records. In November 2019, the AOJ sent the Veteran VA Form 21-4142, Authorization to Disclose Information, and VA Form 21-4142a, General Release of Medical Provider Information. This was sent to the Veteran’s address that had previously been associated with record. However, there is evidence that the Veteran was incarcerated at the time of this mailing, and therefore may not have received the correspondence. No response was received from the Veteran. June 2019 VA treatment indicate that the Veteran was detained and would not be able to attend treatment. VA treatment records in March 2020 indicate the Veteran was incarcerated, and had been so for the prior year. The records also identified the county where he was incarcerated. The address of record for the Veteran is not in that county. Therefore, it appears that the address at which the AOJ sent the Veteran the forms needed to obtain the records requested in the prior Board remand is not the Veteran’s current address. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has directed that VA should tailor the assistance to incarcerated veterans to the peculiar circumstances of confinement. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). This includes assisting the Veteran in obtaining private records by ensuring the VA sends requisite forms to the appropriate address. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A. As such a remand is necessary in order to update the Veteran’s current address of record, to assist the Veteran in obtaining evidence discussed in the Board’s August 2017 remand, and to obtain a medical opinion discussed in the Board’s August 2016 remand. VA treatment records to March 2020 have been associated with the claims file. The RO should attempt to obtain all relevant VA treatment records dated from March 2020 to the present, while the claim is in remand status. Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ensure that the Veteran’s address of record is up to date. If the Veteran is incarcerated, any correspondence should be sent to the address of the facility where he is incarcerated, unless the Veteran indicates it should be sent elsewhere. Include a memorandum in the claims file that the address of record is correct. 2. Obtain VA treatment records from March 2020 to the present. 3. Invite the Veteran to submit medical and hospitalization records, medical statements, and any other medical evidence not already of record relating to his claim, including from prior to February 18, 2013. He should be provided an appropriate amount of time to submit this evidence. In addition, the Veteran should be sent a release form to obtain treatment records from his private urologist, Dr. A.G., including from prior to February 18, 2013. There must be two attempts made to request private treatment records, and all attempts must be documented in the claims file. 4. Obtain an opinion from a VA examiner regarding whether the Veteran’s history of urinary symptoms from 2007 to April 2014 (including dysuria, dribbling, and nocturia with 5 or more voidings per night) were due to service-connected prostatitis, nonservice-connected benign prostate hypertrophy, or some other etiology. The Veteran should not be scheduled for an in-person examination. (Continued on the next page)   The entire claims file should be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. A complete rationale should be provided. If the examiner cannot state an opinion without resorting to speculation, he or she should state why that is so. Scott Shoreman Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Smith 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.