Citation Nr: 21029421 Decision Date: 05/13/21 Archive Date: 05/13/21 DOCKET NO. 19-16 130 DATE: May 13, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for residuals of bladder cancer post partial cystectomy is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps Reserves from July 1958 to January 1959. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2018 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the May 2019 Form 9, Substantive Appeal, the Veteran opted not to have a Board hearing. This matter was previously before the Board in December 2019 for further development. In the December 2019 decision, the Board directed the RO to afford the Veteran a VA examination to assess the current severity of his residuals of bladder cancer. The examiner was specifically requested to delineate all symptomatology associated with, and the current severity of, his service-connected residuals of bladder cancer. Additionally, the examiner was requested, if possible, to delineate all symptoms associated with any nonservice-connected overactive bladder condition. Specifically, the examiner was to opine (1) whether the Veteran's overactive bladder was caused or aggravated by his service-connected residuals to bladder cancer and (2) whether any symptoms, particularly the Veteran's voiding dysfunction, caused by his service-connected residuals to bladder cancer are distinguishable from any symptoms cause by his nonservice-connected overactive bladder. In the February 2021 informal hearing presentation, the Veteran's representative contends that the RO failed to comply with the Board's December 2019 directives. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in January 2020; however, the opinions requested by the December 2019 Board decision were not included in the examiner's report. Moreover, the examiner did not describe the severity of symptoms related to his service-connected residuals to bladder cancer. Consequently, the RO obtained an addendum opinion in September 2020. The September 2020 examiner opined that the Veteran's overactive bladder was less likely as not caused or aggravated by his service-connected residuals of bladder cancer. The examiner also opined that the symptoms relating to the Veteran's voiding dysfunction caused by his service-connected residuals of bladder cancer are distinguishable from any symptoms caused by his nonservice-connected overactive bladder, but did not describe the differing symptoms. The examiner did not list the symptoms related to the service-connected residuals of bladder cancer nor the current severity of such symptoms. Thus, the Board finds the January 2020 and September 2020 examination reports and opinions did not substantially comply with the Board's December 2019 directives and a remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion by an appropriate examiner to assess the current severity of the Veteran's service-connected residuals of bladder cancer. It is within the discretion of the examiner whether an in-person examination is necessary. 2. Provide the examiner the Veteran's complete claims file, including the December 2019 Remand and this Remand, for review. The examination report should reflect that such review was accomplished. 3. After reviewing the claims file, and an in-person examination if deemed necessary, the examiner is requested to: a. Delineate all symptomatology associated with, and the current severity of, his service-connected residuals of bladder cancer. The examiner is also requested to delineate all symptoms associated with any nonservice-connected overactive bladder condition. b. Opine and describe each symptom, particularly the Veteran's voiding dysfunction, caused by his service-connected residuals to bladder cancer and each symptom caused by his nonservice-connected overactive bladder. 4. A complete rationale must be provided for any and all opinions offered. All appropriate studies and consultations should be accomplished, and all clinical findings should be reported in detail. If any requested opinion cannot be provided without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner must fully explain why this is the case and identify what additional evidence or information might allow for a more definitive opinion. 5. After completing the foregoing and any other development necessary, readjudicate the Veteran's claim. 6. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) should be furnished to the Veteran and his representative, and he and his representative should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond. Cynthia M. Bruce Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Agarwal, 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.