Citation Nr: 21032088
Decision Date: 05/25/21	Archive Date: 05/25/21

DOCKET NO. 15-06 603
DATE: May 25, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent prior to August 14, 2012, for service-connected prostate cancer with residuals of radiation colitis and erectile dysfunction is remanded. 

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent from August 14, 2012, to September 18, 2019, and in excess of 40 percent thereafter, for service-connected residuals of prostate cancer, urinary frequency with erectile dysfunction is remanded.

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent from August 14, 2012, for service-connected residuals of radiation colitis, bowel dysfunction associated with residuals of prostate cancer is remanded.

Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from May 1969 to December 1970, with subsequent service in the Georgia Army National Guard.

This appeal was previously before the Board in February 2019, at which time it was remanded for additional development.  Unfortunately, as will be explained, another remand is once again necessary, as there appear to be outstanding private treatment records that are pertinent to the Veteran's claim.

Following the Board's October 2020 remand, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) obtained VA treatment records dated through September 2020.  Amongst those records is a January 2020 VA Pharmacy Medication Management Consultation which noted that the Veteran saw a non-VA urologist, Dr. Lanzone, and that the doctor recently prescribed mirabegron to treat his overactive bladder.  The most recent private treatment records from Dr. Lanzone associated with the claims file are dated through July 2018.

Thus, the Veteran should be provided another opportunity to submit or identify any additional private treatment records, to specifically including any treatment from Dr. Lanzone, that are relevant to his claims on appeal.  If necessary, the Veteran should be asked to provide the necessary information in order for the VA to assist him in obtaining these potentially relevant records. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (2020).

The AOJ should also obtain any updated VA treatment records.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Associate with the claims file any outstanding VA treatment records.

2. Give the Veteran an additional opportunity to submit, or authorize VA to obtain on his behalf, any relevant private treatment records, to specifically include from Dr. Lanzone and Dr. Kubik.  The AOJ should take all appropriate action to obtain identified records.  

(Continued on Next Page)

3. Thereafter, and after any further development deemed necessary, the issues on appeal should be readjudicated.

 

 

V. Chiappetta

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	James R. Springer, 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.