Citation Nr: A21019702 Decision Date: 12/10/21 Archive Date: 12/10/21 DOCKET NO. 200910-110615 DATE: December 10, 2021 REMANDED The appeal regarding the reduction in rating from 100 to 20 percent for residuals of prostate cancer is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1966 to December 1969. This matter came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a rating decision by a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board denied the claim on appeal in a January 2021 decision, which the Veteran appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In August 2021, pursuant to a joint motion for partial remand (JMPR) filed by the parties to this matter, the Court vacated the Board's decision and remanded the case to the Board. A remand is warranted for additional medical inquiry into the reduced rating assigned under 38 C.F.R. § 4.115b for prostate cancer residuals. As noted in the JMPR, the record is unclear regarding the nature and severity of voiding and/or renal dysfunction since January 1, 2021. Specifically, the record is unclear regarding whether a rating higher than 20 percent has been warranted since then. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. In remanding this case, the Board makes no credibility determination, expressed or implied, at this juncture. 2. Undertake appropriate development to obtain any outstanding records pertinent to the claim. Include in the claims file any outstanding VA treatment records. 3. Schedule an examination to determine the nature and severity of residuals from prostate cancer. After reviewing the electronic claims folder, interviewing the Veteran, and examining him, the examiner should address the following questions: (a) Does the Veteran have chronic kidney disease? If so, address the criteria listed under 38 C.F.R. § 4.115a. (b) What is the nature and severity of the Veteran's documented voiding dysfunction since January 1, 2021? (i) Leakage of urine Does leakage require the wearing of absorbent materials which must be changed 2 to 4 times per day? Does leakage require the use of an appliance or the wearing of absorbent materials which must be changed more than 4 times per day? (ii) Frequency of urination Are daytime voiding intervals less than one hour? Must the Veteran awake five or more times per night to void? (iii) Obstructed voiding Does urinary retention require intermittent or continuous catheterization? In rendering the requested report, the examiner should note that the Veteran is competent to attest to matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, including observable symptomatology. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered. In so doing, the examiner shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question(s). G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Christopher McEntee 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.