Citation Nr: 20039957
Decision Date: 06/11/20	Archive Date: 06/11/20

DOCKET NO. 18-20 925
DATE: June 11, 2020

REMANDED

Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 20 percent for service-connected urethra stricture is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from July 1975 to March 1989.  This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2014 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

This case was previously before the Board in June 2019 and December 2019, when it was remanded for Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) development.  The case has been returned to the Board for further appellate review.

Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for service-connected urethra stricture is remanded.

Unfortunately, another remand is necessary.  In the prior remand, the Board directed the RO to obtain a retrospective assessment of the Veteran’s urethral stricture disability.  Although the Veteran did not attend the scheduled examination, the Board finds that an opinion based upon review of the record would serve the intended purpose.  A remand is therefore necessary to obtain the directed medical evidence. 

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

Forward the claims file to an appropriate clinician to determine the severity of the urethral stricture disability throughout the period on appeal, from March 9, 1989 to present.  

If the examiner determines that an additional in-person examination or interview is required, one should be scheduled.  Please note, if the examiner deems it reasonable, an alternate format such as telehealth interview is acceptable.

Following review of the claims file and, if indicated, examination and/or interview of the Veteran, the examiner should provide a retrospective assessment of the urethral stricture disability since March 9, 1989.

The examiner should specifically state whether the disability was productive of frequent dilatations with cystitis.  The examiner should also identify the nature, extent, and severity of the disability under the rating criteria that contemplate types of voiding dysfunction.  

 

All findings must be reported in detail and all opinions must be accompanied by a clear rationale.  If any of the above issues cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation, then a detailed medical explanation as to why this is so must be provided.

 

 

M. HYLAND

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	K. Josey, 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.