Citation Nr: 21031924 Decision Date: 05/25/21 Archive Date: 05/25/21 DOCKET NO. 14-10 941 DATE: May 25, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for the Veteran's cause of death is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer for accrued benefits purposes is remanded. Entitlement to an initial increased rating for hearing loss in excess of 10 percent for accrued benefits purposes is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the United States Navy Reserve from August 1953 to July 1995, and he had several periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) during that time. The Veteran died in August 2010, and the appellant is his surviving spouse. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals on appeal from a November 2010 rating decision. In December 2016, the appellant testified at a Board videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript from that proceeding is associated with the claims file. In a December 2017 and again in July 2019 decision, the Board remanded the case to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development, limited to determining whether the appellant was the Veteran's surviving spouse. The case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review 1. Entitlement to service connection for the Veteran's cause of death is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer for accrued benefits purposes is remanded. 3. Entitlement to an initial increased rating for hearing loss in excess of 10 percent for accrued benefits purposes is remanded. Regrettably, the Board finds that additional development is required before adjudication can proceed with the appellant's claim. The appellant wrote in August 2010 that the Veteran was diagnosed with prostate disability at the Long Beach, California VA Hospital in 1995. The claims file does not contain these VA treatment records nor any evidence that an attempt to obtain these records was attempted. These records would be especially relevant given the Veteran's date of separation was in July 1995 and any records from the Long Beach, California VA hospital from 1995 would be within a year from his separation from service. Additionally, the Veteran reported in an October 2009 correspondence to the Board that he was told while in the military that his prostate was enlarged. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The Board is cognizant of the timeframe since the Veteran's first claim for disabilities, but the appellant should be aware that the Board is attempting to be as thorough as possible to ensure that a decision will take into account any potentially favorable evidence. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the appellant and request that she identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all VA and non-VA health care providers who have treated the Veteran for these disabilities. The appellant should be requested to sign any necessary authorization for release of medical records to VA, and appropriate steps should be made to obtain any identified records. Regardless of the Veteran's response, VA treatment records should be collected from the Long Beach VA hospital and all associated outpatient center and clinics. In particular, the AOJ should retrieve VA treatment records from January 1995 forward. Any archived records should be retrieved from storage. 2. Schedule a review of the Veteran's records with the appropriate VA examiner. After considering the pertinent information in the record in its entirety, the examiner is asked to opine as to the following: a. whether it is at least as likely as not, i.e. 50 percent probability or greater, that the Veteran's prostate cancer was incurred or aggravated by his active duty. In providing an opinion, the examiner should note that the Veteran wrote to VA October 2009 wherein he detailed that he was told during service physical examination of his prostate that his prostate was enlarged and his wife has stated that he was treated for his prostate in 1995. 3. Ensure that the examination report complies with this remand and the questions presented in this request. If the report is insufficient, it must be returned to the examiner for necessary corrective action, as appropriate. 4. After completing the requested actions and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted, readjudicate the issues on appeal. GAYLE E. STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Acosta, 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.