Citation Nr: 21003601 Decision Date: 01/22/21 Archive Date: 01/22/21 DOCKET NO. 12-27 559A DATE: January 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating for type II diabetes mellitus, currently evaluated as 20 percent disabling, is remanded. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for erectile dysfunction is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1967 to December 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeal (Board) on appeal from October 2011 and September 2012 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a July 2019 decision, the Board, in pertinent part, denied entitlement to an increased rating for type II diabetes mellitus and entitlement to a compensable evaluation for erectile dysfunction. The Veteran appealed the July 2019 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an August 2020 Order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (Joint Motion) and vacated the July 2019 Board decision denying the issues listed above. In light of the Joint Motion and the submission of additional evidence by the Veteran, the Board finds that additional development is needed prior to adjudication of the claims. In August 2020 and November 2020, the Veteran submitted statements in which he indicated that his service-connected type II diabetes mellitus and erectile dysfunction had worsened in severity. He also submitted private medical evidence to support his contentions in November 2020. VA’s General Counsel has indicated that, when a claimant asserts that the severity of a disability has increased since the most recent rating examination, an additional examination is appropriate. Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). Therefore, a remand is necessary to obtain additional VA examinations. Moreover, in November 2020, the Veteran specifically requested that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) consider this additional evidence on remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should request that the Veteran provide the names and addresses of any and all health care providers who have provided treatment for type II diabetes mellitus and erectile dysfunction. After acquiring this information and obtaining any necessary authorization, the AOJ should obtain and associate these records with the claims file. The AOJ should also obtain any outstanding VA medical records. 2. After completing the foregoing development, the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of his service-connected type II diabetes mellitus. Any studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. The examiner should report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. In particular, he or she should indicate whether the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus requires insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities. The examiner should also indicate whether there have been any episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions requiring hospitalizations and the number of episodes per year or visits to a diabetic care provider and the number of visits per month. The examiner should further indicate whether the Veteran experienced progressive loss of weight and strength. In addition, the examiner should identify and describe all complications of the Veteran’s type II diabetes mellitus. 3. After completing the foregoing development, the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of his service-connected erectile dysfunction. Any studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. The examiner should report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. In particular, he or she should indicate (Continued on the next page)   whether the Veteran has a penis deformity with loss of erectile power. J. B. FREEMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Osegueda, 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.