Citation Nr: 21027108
Decision Date: 05/04/21	Archive Date: 05/04/21

DOCKET NO. 20-02 755
DATE: May 4, 2021

REMANDED

Service connection for circumcision.

 

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from April 1971 to March 1974.  

The case is on appeal from a November 2018 rating decision.  

In a March 2020 decision, the Board denied service connection for hypertension, kidney disease, and circumcision.  The Veteran appealed that part of the decision denying service connection for circumcision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court).  The parties to this appeal entered into a December 2020 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), and in a December 2020 Order, the Court granted the JMPR and remanded the issue of service connection for circumcision to the Board.  The appeal as to the issues of service connection for hypertension and kidney disease were dismissed.  

Service connection for circumcision.  

The Veteran seeks service connection for residuals of in-service circumcision.  

The December 2020 JMPR states that the Board erred as it relied on an October 2018 VA examination report noting that the Veteran's symptoms of sexual dysfunction were only subjective and unrelated to the in-service circumcision without providing an adequate rationale.  The parties further agreed that the Board erred as it overlooked service treatment records (STRs) after the circumcision noting swelling and pain on December 22, 1973.  Thus, the Board must remand this matter for compliance with the Court's December 2020 order granting the parties' JMPR.  See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998); see also Forcier v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 414, 425 (2006).  On remand, the Veteran should be afforded a new VA examination.  

In view of the remand, outstanding VA treatment records should be associated with the claims file.  

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain outstanding VA treatment records.  

2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination (or telehealth interview, records request, etc. if an in-person examination is not feasible) by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any residuals of in- service circumcision.  The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the clinician.  Any indicated studies should be performed, and all findings should be reported in detail.  

The clinician should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran has residuals of the in-service circumcision, including sexual dysfunction, pain, and any other functional impairment.  

(Continued on the next page)

 

Consideration should be given to: (1) STRs showing that the Veteran underwent a circumcision in December 1973; (2) STRs reflecting complaints after the circumcision of swelling and pain on December 22, 1973; and (3) the Veteran's statements.  

Rationale for all opinions expressed should be provided.  If the clinician cannot provide such opinion, the clinician must make clear that he or she has considered all relevant, procurable data, but that any member of the medical community at large could not provide such an opinion without resorting to speculation.

 

 

RYAN T. KESSEL

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	M. Taylor

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.