Citation Nr: 21015593 Decision Date: 03/17/21 Archive Date: 03/17/21 DOCKET NO. 16-03 421 DATE: March 17, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for erectile dysfunction associated with Parkinson's disease (erectile dysfunction) is denied. FINDING OF FACT During the period on appeal, penile deformity has not been shown CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to an initial compensable rating for erectile dysfunction have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.21, 4.115b, Diagnostic Code 7522. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1969 to May 1973. The October 2018 Board Remand directed the RO to develop and adjudicate the Veteran’s claim for an increased rating for Parkinson’s disease. The Board issued a decision in September 2020, denying an increased rating for Parkinson’s disease. In this decision, the Board also took jurisdiction of and remanded the issue of an increased rating for erectile dysfunction, as due to Parkinson’s disease. Specifically, the AOJ was to examine the unanswered question of whether the Veteran had a penile deformity, within the meaning of DC 7522. The Board is now satisfied there was substantial compliance with this Remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999). Specifically, a new VA examination was obtained, which the Board finds adequate for adjudication purposes. After the required development was completed, this issue was readjudicated and the Veteran was sent a supplemental statement of the case in December 2020. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Remand directives were substantially complied with and, thus, there is no Stegall violation in this case. The Board finds that all residuals of Parkinson’s other than erectile dysfunction, to include voiding dysfunction, have been rated in the May 2020 SSOC, the September 2020 Board Decision, and the November 2020 Rating Decision. Furthermore, while an increased rating for Parkinson’s disease was originally claimed in 2014, the Veteran is in receipt of TDIU for the entire appeal period, given the Board’s September 2020 final denial of an increased rating for Parkinson’s disease. Accordingly, only the issue of entitlement to a compensable rating for erectile dysfunction is currently before the Board. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for erectile dysfunction associated with Parkinson's disease The Veteran seeks a compensable rating for erectile dysfunction. In a May 2016 VA treatment record, and at his May 2019 and November 2020 C&P examinations, he reported sexual symptoms causing lost intimacy with his wife. In May 2017, he endorsed a penile sore that potentially was associated with erectile dysfunction. Unfortunately, a compensable evaluation cannot be awarded. Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings which is based on average impairment of earning capacity. Generally, the degrees of disability specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbations or illnesses proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. Where there is a question as to which of two separate evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability more closely approximates the criteria required for that particular rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. When a reasonable doubt arises regarding the degree of disability, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. In May 2020, the Veteran was issued a notification of a grant of service connection for erectile dysfunction as due to Parkinson’s disease, with a noncompensable rating, effective May 28, 2019. Because the Veteran had mentioned erectile dysfunction in his increased rating claim for Parkinson’s symptoms, the Board in September 2020 considered an increased rating for erectile dysfunction. The Veteran is seeking an initial compensable rating for his service-connected erectile dysfunction. Specifically, he asserts that a penile sore was not evaluated under DC 7522 as a possible deformity. Unfortunately, because this sore is no longer present, a compensable rating is not warranted. In order to warrant a compensable rating, the evidence must show deformity of the penis with loss of erectile power (20 percent). 38 C.F.R. § 4.115(b), DC 7522. Here, the Board observes that the Veteran’s May 2019 C&P examination report indicates that he has erectile dysfunction. Indeed, the report specifically indicates that even with medication, the Veteran is unable to achieve the desired result. However, penile deformity is not shown on this examination. In fact, a May 2018 urology note shows a normal phallus and testicles with no lesions present. The November 2020 C&P examiner confirmed that the Veteran’s penile lesion, the source of deformity potentially warranting a compensable rating, had resolved. There is no evidence of any external testicular or penile deformities. Absent evidence of penile deformity, even though there is erectile dysfunction, a compensable rating is not warranted under DC 7522. The Board has considered the Veteran’s statements, including to his November 2020 C&P examiner, that his erectile dysfunction precludes intercourse, affecting his relationship with his wife. Despite trying two types of medication, the Veteran is not able to achieve an erection sufficient for penetration and ejaculation. In rendering a decision on appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. See Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990). Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility. While the Veteran is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses, he is not competent to identify a specific level of disability of his service-connected disabilities according to the appropriate diagnostic codes. Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); see also Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25 (1991) (“although interest may affect the credibility of testimony, it does not affect competency to testify”). On the other hand, such competent evidence concerning the nature and extent of the Veteran’s erectile dysfunction has been provided by the medical personnel who examined him during the current appeal and rendered pertinent opinions in conjunction with the evaluations. The medical findings (as provided in the examination reports) directly address the criteria under which these disabilities are evaluated. As a final matter, although the Board has found that a compensable rating is not warranted for this disability, it is noted that he does receive special monthly compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (k). As such, he is receiving some compensation for this disability.   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. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Z. Maskatia