Citation Nr: 21009732 Decision Date: 02/23/21 Archive Date: 02/23/21 DOCKET NO. 19-09 939 DATE: February 23, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for voiding dysfunction is remanded. Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on the need for aid and attendance is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1953 to February 1955 and April 1955 to March 1980. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2017 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This case was remanded in October 2020 for further development by the undersigned. The October 2020 remand directed the AOJ to obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment and nursing home records from July 2019 to the present, as well as schedule the Veteran for a VA examination. The Veteran’s updated VA treatment records were obtained and the Veteran underwent a VA examination in December 2020. The Veteran was sent a letter in October 2020 asking him to submit and/or specify evidence to support his appeal. No response or additional medical evidence was received from the Veteran. The Board notes that the Veteran was scheduled for a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge in September 2020. However, in August 2020, the Veteran’s spouse and power of attorney submitted correspondence indicating that he would not be able to attend the scheduled hearing as the Veteran was in a VA nursing home that was locked down due to the coronavirus pandemic. The Veteran’s spouse reported that the Veteran had no further evidence to add to the record. Additionally, the Veteran’s representative requested that the Board proceed with adjudication of the claim in a September 2020 legal brief. Therefore, the Board has determined that the Veteran has withdrawn his request for a Board hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.705(e). 1. Service connection for voiding dysfunction is remanded. The Board finds that a claim of service connection for voiding dysfunction is reasonably raised by the record. See Bailey v. Wilkie, No. 19-2661 (Vet. App. January 6, 2021). Here, the Veteran contends he is entitled to SMC based on the need for aid and attendance due to his service-connected disabilities, including his 100 percent rated prostate cancer. A November 2011 VA examination states that the etiology of the Veteran’s voiding dysfunction is “prostate cancer and radiation treatment of the same.” However, service connection for voiding dysfunction was never considered by the AOJ. The Board finds that pursuant to Bailey, the Veteran need not file a separate, formal claim for secondary service connection for voiding dysfunction when it is reasonably raised by the record. As such, remand is required for the AOJ to adjudicate the issue of service connection for voiding dysfunction, secondary to prostate cancer. 2. Entitlement to SMC based on the need for aid and attendance is remanded. This issue is inextricably intertwined with the remanded issue of service connection for voiding dysfunction. Accordingly, it must be remanded as well. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should adjudicate the issue of service connection for voiding dysfunction, secondary to the service-connected prostate cancer. 2. If service connection for voiding dysfunction is granted, the AOJ should obtain an addendum opinion to determine whether the Veteran meets the requirements for aid and attendance due solely to his service-connected disabilities. All pertinent evidence of record must be made available to the examiner for review. (Continued on the next page)   The examiner must specifically address whether due his voiding dysfunction, the Veteran is unable to dress himself or to keep himself ordinarily clean and presentable; requires frequent need of adjustment of any special prosthetic or orthopedic appliance which, by reason of the particular disability, cannot be done without aid; is unable to feed himself through the loss of coordination of the upper extremities or through extreme weakness; is unable to attend to the wants of nature; or incapacity that requires care and assistance on a regular basis to protect the claimant from the hazards or dangers incident to his or her daily environment. Tiffany Dawson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board I. Kerner, 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.