Citation Nr: 21026817 Decision Date: 05/04/21 Archive Date: 05/04/21 DOCKET NO. 17-22 541A DATE: May 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for erectile dysfunction is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1967 to September 1970. By way of background, this matter originally came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Jackson, Mississippi. In a January 2020 Board decision, the issue of entitlement to a compensable rating for erectile dysfunction was denied, which the Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("CAVC" or "the Court"). The Court issued a Joint Motion for Partial Remand Decision ("JMPR") in December 2020 vacating the Board's January 2020 decision as it pertained to the issue of a compensable rating for erectile dysfunction and remanded the case back to the Board for disposition consistent with the Court's motion. The Court noted that the portions of the Board's January 2020 decision pertaining to the claim for entitlement to service connection for hypertension should remain undisturbed. The Board notes that the issue of service connection for hypertension is still pending and will be addressed in a separate Board decision. Entitlement to a compensable rating for erectile dysfunction. The Veteran through his representative asserts that he is entitled to a compensable rating for his service-connected erectile dysfunction disability. The Veteran through his representative stated that the Board erred by failing to ensure compliance with the duty to assist because the record indicates that the Veteran sought treatment with private primary care physicians and it does not appear that an attempt was made to retrieve those records. Additionally, the representative noted that there was no indication that efforts were made to ensure that the private treatment records were obtained. See Appellate Brief Received April 2021. The December 2020 JMPR specifically states that the record indicates that the Veteran has sought treatment with private primary care physicians and there is no indication that efforts were made to ensure that these records were obtained prior to the issuance of the Board's January 2020 decision. Additionally, the CAVC noted that the Veteran's VA treatment records and private treatment records indicate that the Veteran sought primary care treatment with Dr. Edney. See September 2014 VA treatment record and May 2013 private prostate surgery record. CAVC further stated that a May 2017 VA treatment record noted that the Veteran has more recently sought primary care with Dr. Harris. VA has a duty to assist the Veteran in the development of a claim. This duty includes assisting the Veteran in the procurement of pertinent treatment records. 38 U.S.C, § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. As such, the Board finds that the duty to assist must be fully satisfied before rendering a decision on this matter. Consistent with the directives in the JMPR, this matter must be remanded as the treatment records from the Veteran's primary care physicians, to include Dr. Edney and Dr. Harris, which were not considered in the Board's January 2020 decision could reasonably provide information regarding the severity of symptoms of genitourinary disorders and for referrals for specialized treatment to include treatment for the Veteran's erectile dysfunction disorder. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records. 2. The AOJ should follow the appropriate protocol and conduct all necessary development required for retrieving the Veteran's relevant private treatment records to include records from primary care physicians, to include Dr. Edney and Dr. Harris, related to symptoms of genitourinary disorders and for referrals for specialized treatment to include treatment for the Veteran's erectile dysfunction disorder. The AOJ should request any available records concerning the Veteran's erectile dysfunction disability. Any other pertinent records identified by the Veteran should also be obtained. All communication, and attempts regarding the development of this issue by the AOJ should be clearly documented and associated with the case file. The Veteran's assistance in obtaining the records should be requested as needed. (Continued on the next page) 3. After completing the preceding development in paragraph 1, request an addendum medical opinion, or if necessary, schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate specialist concerning the severity level of his erectile dysfunction disorder. In the medical opinion, the examiner should specifically comment on the private medical records retrieved, to include those from Dr. Edney and Dr. Harris, related to symptoms of erectile dysfunction and their relevance to the severity of the Veteran's current service-connected erectile dysfunction disability. The examiner should give consideration to the Veteran's lay statements. Tiffany Dawson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Dorsey-Kwansa, 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.