Citation Nr: 23023294
Decision Date: 04/20/23	Archive Date: 04/20/23

DOCKET NO. 19-10 751
DATE: April 20, 2023

REMANDED

Restoration of a 60 percent disability rating for urinary incontinence is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from July 2001 to April 2006.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2018 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In May 2020, the Board remanded this issue for additional development.

1. Restoration of a 60 percent disability rating for urinary incontinence is remanded.

Regrettably, the Board finds a remand is warranted for the issuance of a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). After the issuance of the SSOC on January 11, 2021, additional medical records pertaining to the issue at hand, restoration of a 60 percent rating for urinary incontinence, were added to the claim file. However, a SSOC was not issued after the additional evidence was obtained. Moreover, the Veteran did not submit a waiver of RO consideration of the additional evidence under 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 nor can one be inferred from the evidence of record.

Accordingly, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 19.31, the issue of restoration of a 60 percent rating for urinary incontinence must be remanded for the issuance of a SSOC. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.31.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

Readjudicate the issue of restoration of a 60 percent disability rating for urinary incontinence after considering all the evidence, including additional medical records submitted after the issuance of the SSOC. After readjudication, if the claim remains denied, another SSOC must be provided to the Veteran. After the Veteran has adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review.

 

 

E.I. VELEZ

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Lauritzen, Dane (he/they)

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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.