Citation Nr: 21027931
Decision Date: 05/07/21	Archive Date: 05/07/21

DOCKET NO. 19-39 074
DATE: May 7, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for residuals of prostate cancer is remanded.

Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for erectile dysfunction is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from July 1962 to July 1964, and from June 1967 to June 1971.

This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c).  38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2).

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2018 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which, inter alia, granted service connection for residuals of prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction and assigned noncompensable ratings, effective August 30, 2017.

1. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for residuals of prostate cancer is remanded.

The Veteran contends that his service-connected residuals of prostate cancer is more severe than currently rated.

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in February 2018.  The examiner noted a diagnosis of prostate cancer status post radical prostatectomy.  It was noted that the Veteran experienced voiding dysfunction which caused urine leakage.  The examiner noted, however, that the wearing of absorbent material or use of an appliance was not required.

In November 2020 correspondence, the Veteran indicated that he experienced issues with urinary control which required him to wear an absorbent pad.  See November 2020 Veteran's correspondence.

As it appears that the Veteran's service-connected residuals of prostate cancer may have worsened since he was last examined for VA compensation purposes, the Board finds that remand is warranted for a new examination to assess the current severity of his residuals of prostate cancer.  See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994).

2. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for erectile dysfunction is remanded.

The Veteran contends that his service-connected erectile dysfunction is more severe than currently rated.  Specifically, he contends that the length of his penis was significantly reduced by procedures related to the removal of his prostate.  He contends that a penile implant partially restored the length of his penis, however, he continues to experience sexual dysfunction and only partial sensitivity in the penis.  See November 2020 Veteran's correspondence.

As noted above, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination for prostate cancer in February 2018.  The examination report noted a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction.  It was also noted that the Veteran received a surgical penile implant for erection.  However, the examiner did not indicate whether the Veteran had a deformity of the penis, as contended by the Veteran.  As the Board cannot make a fully informed decision on the issue without additional examination, the Board finds that remand is warranted.

Accordingly, the matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Afford the Veteran a VA examination to evaluate the current severity of his service-connected residuals of prostate cancer.  Access to the Veteran's electronic VA claims file must be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the examination.

The examination report should identify all symptoms and pathology associated with the service-connected residuals of prostate cancer, including any bladder or urinary symptoms and whether such require the wearing of absorbent materials or the use of an appliance.

(Continued on the next page)

 

2. Afford the Veteran a VA examination to evaluate the current severity of his service-connected erectile dysfunction.  Access to the Veteran's electronic VA claims file must be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the examination.

The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran's disability under the rating criteria.

 

 

K. Conner

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	M. Ruddy, 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.