Citation Nr: 21071288 Decision Date: 11/30/21 Archive Date: 11/30/21 DOCKET NO. 16-48 716 DATE: November 30, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 40 percent prior to December 1, 2018 and in excess of 10 percent thereafter for residuals of prostatectomy to include bladder stone, urinary retention, recurrent urinary tract infection, and scar; to include the propriety of reduction of the disability rating from 100 percent to 40 percent, effective April 1, 2015 is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based on individual employability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from January 1966 to December 1969. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeal on appeal from a January 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In an August 2018 rating decision, the Agency of Jurisdiction (AOJ) reduced the evaluation for prostatectomy residuals from 40 percent to 10 percent, effective December 1, 2018. In Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that a TDIU claim is part and parcel of an increased rating claim when such claim is raised by the record. In this case, the evidence has raised the matter of unemployability due to the Veteran's service-connected residuals of prostatectomy. Therefore, the issue is raised by the record and is properly before the Board. The Board notes that the Veteran was previously represented by Military Order of the Purple Heart (MOPH). However, in an August 2021 BVA letter, the Veteran was informed that MOPH closed its' service officer program in July 2021 and requested that the Board remove its recognition as an organization authorized to prepare, present, and prosecute claims for VA benefits and can no longer represent the Veteran in this matter. The Veteran has not authorized an alternate representative since issuance of the July 2021 letter and proceeds unrepresented. The Board also notes that the Veteran was scheduled for a Board hearing in October 2021 but was deemed a no-show. As such, the Board will proceed with the evidence of record. 1. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 40 percent prior to December 1, 2018 and in excess of 10 percent thereafter for residuals of prostatectomy to include bladder stone, urinary retention, recurrent urinary tract infection, and scar; to include the propriety of reduction of the disability rating from 100 percent to 40 percent, effective April 1, 2015 is remanded. The Veteran contends that the current severity of his prostate condition is more severe than contemplated by the assigned evaluations. The Veteran's rating for residuals of prostatectomy was reduced from 100 percent to 40 percent, from April 1, 2015 and as 10 percent disabling from December 1, 2018. The Board notes that the Veteran was first afforded a VA examination in November 2013. The examination demonstrated the Veteran's prostate cancer was in remission but that he experienced post-operative complications such as urinary frequency, erectile dysfunction, recurrent urinary tract infections, and bladder stones causing mild functional impairment. The examiner noted that the Veteran is followed by a private physician and the VA. In his April 2016 DRO hearing, the Veteran continued to report urinary leakage that had not resolved. He reported current treatments with urologist Dr. R. at the VAMC Newington. However, treatment records with Dr. R. from VAMC Newington are not reflected in the claims file. As these records are pertinent to the Veteran's claim, a remand is required to obtain these records. 2. Entitlement to TDIU is remanded. As noted in the introduction, entitlement to a TDIU has been raised by the evidence. Specifically, in the April 2016 DRO hearing the Veteran asserted that he has been unable to maintain a job due to secondary effects of his prostatectomy. Accordingly, the issue of entitlement to a TDIU has been raised; however, a remand is required prior to adjudication of the claim as the Veteran has not been provided adequate notice of the requirements to substantiate TDIU, nor has the RO addressed TDIU in the first instance. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. With any necessary assistance from the Veteran, obtain all outstanding VA and/or private records, specifically including all treatments with urologist Dr. R. from VAMC Newington. Efforts to obtain these records should be documented. 2. Issue a notice letter to the Veteran regarding the claim for a TDIU. Ask him to complete VA Form 21-8940, Veteran's Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability. Upon receipt of the form, complete any necessary additional development. 3. Readjudicate the claims on appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, provide the Veteran with a supplemental statement of the case and afford him the requisite opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board for further appellate action. L. CHU Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Y. Asfaw, 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.