Citation Nr: 21024891 Decision Date: 04/26/21 Archive Date: 04/26/21 DOCKET NO. 16-28 703 DATE: April 26, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a recurrent penile disability, to include genital warts, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from July 1970 to June 1972. Entitlement to service connection for a recurrent penile disability, to include genital warts, is remanded. The Veteran contends that service connection for a recurrent penile disability is warranted as the claimed disability was manifested as the result of the documented in service genitourinary disability. Documentation in the record indicates that the Veteran is in receipt of Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits. The evidence considered by the SSA in granting the Veteran’s claim is not of record. The Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) duty to assist the Veteran includes an obligation to obtain the records from the SSA. Masors v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 181, 187 188 (1992). The service treatment records reflect that the Veteran was treated for gonorrhea and penile sores and itching. VA clinical documentation dated between August 2015 and March 2020 states that the Veteran was treated for genital warts. The report of a January 2020 VA examination states that the Veteran was diagnosed with a redundant prepuce, glans penis and prepuce adhesions, penile benign neoplasms, and condyloma acuminata of the glans penis. The examiner concluded that “the condition claimed was less likely than not (less than 50% probability) incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness.” The nurse-practitioner commented that “there is no current diagnosis of genital warts and none are noted on clinical exam.” She did not note or otherwise address either the VA clinical documentation of record which show ongoing treatment of genital warts or the Veteran’s contentions that the claimed disability was related to his documented in service gonorrhea and other genitourinary symptoms. Given such deficiencies, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) finds that the examination report is of limited probative value. VA’s duty to assist includes, in appropriate cases, the duty to conduct a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination which is accurate and fully descriptive. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121, 124 (1991). When VA undertakes to obtain an evaluation, it must ensure that the evaluation is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). Therefore, the Board finds that further VA evaluation is necessary. Clinical documentation dated after June 2020 is not of record. VA should obtain all relevant VA and private treatment records which could potentially be helpful in resolving the Veteran’s claims. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78 (1990); Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for each private healthcare provider who has treated any penile disability. Make two requests for the authorized records from all identified healthcare providers unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 2. Obtain any VA treatment records not of record, to include those pertaining to treatment after June 2020. 3. Contact the SSA and request that copies of all records developed in association with the Veteran’s award of disability benefits be forward for incorporation into the record. 4. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination conducted by a medical doctor to assist in determining the current nature of any recurrent penile disabilities and any relationship to active service. The examiner must review the record and should note that review in the report. A rationale for all opinions should be provided. The examiner should: (a) Diagnose all recurrent penile disabilities found. (b) Opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any identified penile disability had its onset during active service or is related to any incident of service, including the documented gonorrhea and penile sores and itching. . J. T. HUTCHESON Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Ivan Franklin 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.