Citation Nr: 21031381 Decision Date: 05/21/21 Archive Date: 05/21/21 DOCKET NO. 16-46 707 DATE: May 21, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for left scrotal abcess with Escherichia coli (E. coli is denied. FINDING OF FACT The competent and credible evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran has left scrotal abscess with E. coli. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for left scrotal abscess with E. coli are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1982 to December 1984. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The RO also adjudicated the issues of entitlement to service connection for depression, right arm radial nerve palsy, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the February 2015 rating decision and the Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement for these issues. However, before the statement of the case was issued, the Veteran withdrew these issues in an April 2015 written statement. As such, these issues are not before the Board at this time. The Veteran was scheduled to testify at a hearing before the Board on November 2019. A September 2019 letter notified the Veteran of the date, time, and location of the hearing. However, he did not appear for this hearing and has not provided a reason for his failure to appear or requested that the hearing be rescheduled. Accordingly, the Board will proceed with appellate review. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d) (providing that failure to appear for a scheduled hearing will be processed as though the request for a hearing had been withdrawn). Pursuant to the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA), VA has duties to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board."); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). 1. Entitlement to service connection for left scrotal abcess with Escherichia coli is denied. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. That determination requires a finding of current disability that is related to an injury or disease in service. Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 309 (1993); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141 (1993). Service connection may be granted for a disability diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability is due to disease or injury that was incurred or aggravated in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). The first requirement for any service connection claim is evidence of a disability. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). Service treatment records show that the Veteran had a left scrotum nodule since November 1983 that became tender and painful in January 1984. In June 1984, the Veteran was diagnosed with acute left side epididymitis and left scrotal abscess with E. coli. He had testicle pain and tenderness with no urination problem or urethral discharge. In June 1984, he underwent an incision and drainage of his left abscess. His IVP was completely normal and it was noted that by the time he was discharged, he was healing well with almost no residual pain. In a February 2015 VA examination for male reproductive system conditions, it was noted that the Veteran had been diagnosed with scrotal abscess in 1984. The Veteran reported that he continued to have "swelling" of his scrotum, but that he had not had it drained since 1984. He also reported that he started having erectile dysfunction soon after the 1984 drainage. The Veteran had voiding dysfunction that caused signs or symptoms of obstructed voiding and erectile dysfunction. The examiner found that the etiology of his erectile dysfunction was unknown but was less likely than not attributable to his scrotal abscess. Physical examination showed normal penis, testes, and epididymis. The Veteran reported that the pain in his scrotum caused so much pain, he was not able to work or he had to leave work. The examiner opined that the Veteran had not had another abscess since the one he had drained in 1984. He also had not needed any antibiotics for any type of infection in his scrotum. In an April 2015 statement, the Veteran reported that he had been examined by his primary care provider twice for complaints of pain. He also was treated by Dr. Ritter in 1986, but did not have his address. He indicated that he would return release forms to obtain those records. The Board notes that in a July 2015 development letter, the RO notified the Veteran that if there were any new private treatment records that he wanted the RO to request, that he should complete the attached VA Form 21-4142 attached. However, the Veteran did not return a completed VA Form 21-4142. Given the decision by the Veteran not to participate in any further development of his claim, the Board recognizes that the duty to assist is a two-way street. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). Here, the Board finds that, as the Veteran has rejected VA's attempts to generate the necessary information to assist with substantiating his claim, there is no duty to seek further development. Post-service treatment records did not show any complaints of, treatment for, or diagnosis of a scrotal abscess or any residuals thereof, to include any other issues with his scrotum. In December 2010, it was noted that the Veteran had normal scrotum and testicles with no masses or tenderness to palpation. Further, it appears that the records the Veteran referred to in his April 2015 lay statement were January 2009 and August 2010 VA treatment records. In January 2009, the Veteran was noted to have problems starting urination with weak stream, dribbling, nocturia, and urgency. In August 2010, the Veteran had urinary hesitancy and pain for two days with no penile discharge. Based on a careful review of the subjective and clinical evidence, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against the claim for service connection for left scrotal abscess with E. coli. The February 2015 VA examiner found that the Veteran had not had another abscess since 1984 and that he had not required any antibiotics for any type of infection in his scrotum. Further, the examiner expressly found, upon physical examination, that the Veteran had normal penis, testes, and epididymis. In sum, the Veteran has not presented, identified, or alluded to the existence of any post-service medical evidence of a diagnosis of left scrotal abscess with E. coli or any residuals thereof. Hence, no underlying disability has been clinically diagnosed during the appeal period or proximate thereto with regard to left scrotal abscess. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013). The Veteran is certainly competent to report his history of left scrotal abcess and subjective symptoms, to include pain, but he is not competent to provide a diagnosis of an underlying disability for such symptoms. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Additionally, it appears that the pain the Veteran attributed to a left scrotal abscess was instead due to dysuria that occurred prior to the period on appeal. The Veteran has not presented any competent and credible evidence of a current diagnosis for left scrotal abcess with E. coli or any residuals thereof and the available evidence does not support that the Veteran has any persistent symptomatology that would suggest that he has a left scrotal abcess with E. coli. Thus, the claim for service connection for left scrotal abscess with E. coli is denied. In summary, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding in favor of the Veteran's service connection claim for left scrotal abscess with E. coli. Consequently, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply, and service connection must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). LESLEY A. REIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Ko, 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.