Citation Nr: 22008038 Decision Date: 02/11/22 Archive Date: 02/11/22 DOCKET NO. 16-21 529 DATE: February 11, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a stomach disability, to include as secondary to a service-connected psychiatric disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a prostate disability is remanded. Entitlement to special monthly compensation based on the need for regular aid and attendance is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1978 to March 1984. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs VA Regional Office. In June 2019, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a travel Board hearing. The Board notes that the Veteran's attorney requested another Board hearing in August 2021. In December 2021, the Veteran's attorney requested that the Board hearing be cancelled and the hearing was cancelled. The Board notes the Veterans claim for service connection for emphysema and sarcoidosis, schizoaffective disorder, and degenerative disc disease of his spine were also on appeal with these issues before the Board. In an April 2021 rating decision, the VA regional office granted service connection for those claims. He was also granted special monthly compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (s)(1) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(i). As the benefit sought on appeal has been granted in full, these issues are no longer before the Board. Therefore, the remaining issues on appeal are his claims for service connection for a prostate disability, stomach disability, and entitlement to special monthly compensation based on the need for regular aid and attendance. These matters were previously before the Board in June 2020 but were remanded for additional development. In an April 2021 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), his claims were denied. These matters are again before the Board for adjudication. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a stomach disability, to include as secondary to a service-connected psychiatric disorder is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a prostate disability is remanded. Upon review of the evidence, the Board finds that a remand is warranted. First, it does not appear that the Veteran's complete service treatment records have been obtained. He served in the United States Army from June 1978 to March 1984. However, a review of his service treatment records received in June 2013 only reflect treatment dates from 1980 to 1984. There are no service treatment records from 1978 or 1979. Another service treatment records file was associated with his claims file in September 2020 but there were service treatment records found. As these service treatment records from 1978 and 1979 may be pertinent to his service connection claims for a stomach and prostate disability, efforts should be taken to obtain them on remand. With regards to his stomach disability, his VA treatment demonstrate that he has a diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The available service treatment records also reflect he was treated for vomiting with little abdominal pain in December 1983. The Veteran further testified at the Board hearing that he first experienced stomach issues in service eating his meal in basic training. He testified that he developed symptoms such as a burning sensation at the bottom of his stomach and nausea. As there is a current disability and an in-service event, low threshold of McClendon is satisfied, and remand is needed to obtain a VA examination to also determine the nature and etiology of his stomach disability. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The Veteran further reported in an August 2019 private medical opinion for his psychiatric disorder, that his psychiatric disorder causes numerous somatic symptoms such as stomach aches. The August 2019 private examiner further indicated that his stomach pain and distress are consistent with generalized anxiety and fear and is supported by evidence throughout his medical records where he went to medical services frequently complaining of such difficulties without any physical evidence of disease being found. As he is currently service connected for a psychiatric disability and the evidence indicate a relationship between the two disabilities, a medical opinion for secondary service connection is also warranted upon remand. Regarding his prostate disability, he currently has a diagnosis of benign prostate hypertrophy. Although the service treatment record of evidence does not indicate any treatment for a prostate condition, the Veteran testified during the Board hearing that he was going to the bathroom a lot during service and had constant urination and cramping after service. A veteran is competent to testify about his symptoms that are readily observable to him through his senses. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). In this regard, the Board finds that the low threshold of McClendon is also satisfied as to his prostate disability. McLendon, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). As such, a remand is warranted to obtain a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his prostate disability. Based on the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that a remand is warranted to obtain outstanding service treatment records and VA examinations to determine that nature and etiology of his stomach and prostate disability. 3. Entitlement to compensation based on aid and attendance or housebound is remanded. As a decision on the remanded issues of entitlement to service connection for a prostate and stomach disability could significantly impact a decision on this issue, they are inextricably intertwined. As such, a remand of the claim for special monthly compensation based on the need for regular aid and attendance is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Make all necessary efforts to obtain the Veteran's complete service treatment records. All efforts to obtain the complete service treatment records must be documented in the claims file and any records received pursuant to this request must be associated with the claims file. If the VA Regional Office determines that the records are unavailable, a memorandum explaining the efforts undertaken to obtain them should be completed and added to the claims file. 2. Obtain any outstanding VA or private treatment records related to the Veteran's stomach and prostate disability and associate them with the claims file. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination for his stomach and prostate disability. The claims file, including a copy of this remand, should be made available to the examiner, who should review it in conjunction with the prior examination and should note that review in the report. The VA examiner is requested to provide an opinion to the following questions: a.) Is the Veteran's stomach disability at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) related to an in-service injury, event, or illness, to include the Veteran's consumption of meals during basic training? b.) Is the Veteran's stomach disability at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) (1) proximately caused or (2) aggravated by his service-connected psychiatric disability? c.) Is the Veteran's prostate disability at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) related to an in-service injury, event, or illness, to include his reports of frequent urination during service? The examiner must consider the lay statements contained in the Veteran's claims folder concerning the Veteran's reported and observed symptoms during and after his active service. A complete and detailed rationale for these opinions should be provided for every opinion requested by the examiner. (Continued on the next page) 4. After, readjudicate the claim. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and provide him with an appropriate opportunity to respond. M. Tenner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Xiong, 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.