Citation Nr: 21029313 Decision Date: 05/13/21 Archive Date: 05/13/21 DOCKET NO. 190408-7856 DATE: May 13, 2021 REMANDED From February 1, 2011, entitlement to a rating greater than 60 percent for "S/P latrogenic severance of urether from urinary bladder with catheter placement and chronic cystitis (previously shown as bladder injury with permanent placement of suprapubic catheter)" is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from May 1959 to April 1961. The procedural history of this appeal is complex, so the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) will explain it. The Board granted the Veteran disability compensation pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1151 "for residuals of a June 2013 radical prostatectomy" in December 2016. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), in turn, implemented this grant in a December 2016 rating decision. It characterized the disability as "compensation for bladder injury with permanent placement of suprapubic catheter" pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1151. It rated the disability as 60 percent disabling effective February 1, 2011. The Veteran appealed the decision on January 19, 2017. He listed "TDIU" as his "issue of disagreement." He submitted a duplicate of the January 19, 2017 appeal on February 1, 2017. One week later, on February 8, 2017, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-8940, "Veteran's Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability." The AOJ construed the Veteran's appeal and subsequent TDIU application as a new claim. It therefore readjudicated the issues of an increased rating for his bladder disorder and entitlement to a TDIU in a June 2017 rating decision. In this decision, the AOJ recharacterized the bladder disorder as "S/P latrogenic severance of urether from urinary bladder with catheter placement and chronic cystitis." On August 23, 2017, the President signed into law the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-55 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 38 U.S.C.), 131 Stat. 1105 (2017), also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). This law created a new framework for veterans dissatisfied with VA's decision on their claim to seek review. On May 17, 2018, the Veteran appealed the two issues the AOJ adjudicated in June 2017. With regard to the bladder disorder, he appealed the rating assigned, noting he sought "extraschedular consideration or addition of other diagnostic codes." On May 23, 2018, the Veteran attempted to opt-in to the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP), a pilot program VA was using at the time to test the AMA framework. By electing RAMP, he would have withdrawn the appeal he submitted in the legacy appeal system on May 17, 2018. On June 1, 2018, the AOJ rejected his RAMP application finding the Veteran did not qualify. In a June 26, 2018 rating decision, the AOJ granted a TDIU and entitlement to Dependents' Educational Assistance, both effective February 8, 2017. The AOJ found the TDIU grant satisfied, in full, the January 19, 2017 and May 17, 2018 appeals for the denial of a TDIU. The AOJ did not address the May 17, 2018 appeal for an increased rating for the bladder disorder. The Board, recognizing the AOJ's oversight, contacted the AOJ to determine if it would accept the appeal for an increased rating for the bladder disorder into RAMP. The AOJ notified the Board in April 2021 that it would not accept the appeal into RAMP. Therefore, the Board has docketed the appeal for an increased rating for the bladder disorder in the legacy appeal system under Docket No. 190408-7856, and it is the subject of this appeal. The Board recognizes that this is the same Docket No. as is assigned to the Veteran's AMA appeal, but the Board assures the Veteran that these are distinct appeals being adjudicated in distinct appeal systems. The Veteran proceeded to appeal the effective date the AOJ assigned for the TDIU in the June 26, 2018 rating decision. He submitted a RAMP opt-in on October 26, 2018, a legacy appeal on November 16, 2018, another RAMP opt-in on November 20, 2018, another legacy appeal on November 27, 2018, and another RAMP opt-in on December 4, 2018. Of these five separate appeals, the AOJ recognized the November 20, 2018 RAMP opt-in in a January 25, 2019 letter. As such, it proceeded to conduct a Higher-Level Review (HLR) as requested. In so doing, it recognized the AOJ had committed a pre-decision duty-to-assist error in the June 26, 2018 rating decision, so it conducted additional development. Having completed this development, the AOJ issued a RAMP supplemental claim rating decision on April 5, 2019 in which it denied an earlier effective date for the TDIU. On April 8, 2019, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal. In it, he appealed the April 5, 2019 RAMP supplemental claim rating decision, electing the Direct Review docket. The Board, in August 2019, denied an earlier effective date. The Veteran appealed the Board's denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). The Court, in an August 2020 Memorandum Decision, vacated the Board's August 2019 decision, and it remanded the matter for proceedings consistent with the Memorandum Decision. The Board granted the Veteran an effective date of February 1, 2011 for his TDIU in an April 15, 2021 decision. Here, the AOJ has not issued a Statement of the Case (SOC) for the issue of a rating greater than 60 percent "S/P latrogenic severance of urether from urinary bladder with catheter placement and chronic cystitis (previously shown as bladder injury with permanent placement of suprapubic catheter)," so remand is necessary pursuant to Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Issue a SOC for "entitlement to a rating greater than 60 percent for "S/P latrogenic severance of urether from urinary bladder with catheter placement and chronic cystitis (previously shown as bladder injury with permanent placement of suprapubic catheter)" from February 1, 2011, and notify the Veteran of his appellate rights. Tiffany Dawson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Sopko, 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.