92 Decision Citation: BVA 92-02822 Y92 BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 DOCKET NO. 91-39 566 ) DATE ) ) ) THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased evaluation for nonspecific prostatitis, currently rated 10 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Victoria Ott, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION This matter came before the Board on appeal from an August 23, 1990, rating decision, confirmed on March 25, 1991, of the Newark, New Jersey, Regional Office (hereinafter RO). The veteran served from November 1942 to January 1946. The notice of disagreement was received on October 16, 1990. The statement of the case was issued on November 5, 1990. The substantive appeal was received on November 19, 1990. The supplemental statement of the case was issued on April 8, 1991. The case was received at the Board on August 9, 1991, and docketed on August 13, 1991. Written argument was presented on October 28, 1991, by the veteran's representative, Disabled American Veterans. The matters of entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder and entitlement to special monthly compensation on account of loss of use of a creative organ are referred once again to the RO for appropriate action. REMAND The veteran has been service connected for nonspecific prostatitis since 1946. He alleges that because of increased symptomatology, he underwent two prostate operations in an effort to correct the problem, but that they were unsuccessful. He argues that these operations were related to his service-connected disability. He has submitted private medical records which show that in 1988, he underwent a transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia and in March 1990, he underwent another transurethral resection and incision of the bladder neck. Furthermore, according to a medical statement from Robert J. Biester, M.D., the veteran continues to seek medical attention. However, the veteran has not been afforded a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) examination since either of these operations. VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C. 5107(a) (1989) (formerly 38 U.S.C. 3007(a), recodified in 1991). This duty includes considering whether the evidence of record is sufficient and, if not, assisting the veteran in obtaining the necessary evidence. Littke v. Derwinski, U.S. Vet. App. No. 89-68 (Dec. 6, 1990). An accurate assessment of his current disability is a fact essential to his claim, but lacking from the evidence. Moreover, in Schafrath v. Derwinski, U.S. Vet. App. No. 89-114 (Nov. 26, 1991), the Court held that VA must consider the severity of disabilities in the context of their total histories. Copies of those decisions are attached for the RO's information. The RO has held that the surgeries performed in 1988 and 1990 were not related to the service connected nonspecific prostatitis. Nevertheless, historical information concerning his genitourinary condition should be in the record. Therefore, we conclude that additional information is required to equitably adjudicate his claim. We REMAND the case to the RO for the following: 1. The RO, after securing any necessary release of information forms from the veteran, should secure copies of the clinical records pertaining to treatment of the veteran from Robert Biester, M.D. 2. The veteran should be afforded a VA urology examination to determine the current severity of his prostatitis disability. The examiner is requested to express an opinion regarding the relationship, if any, between the disorders which led to the veteran's transurethral resections of the prostate and his service connected nonspecific prostatitis. 3. Following completion of these actions, the RO should review the evidence and determine whether the veteran's claim may then be granted. If the veteran's claim remains denied, he and his representative should be provided an appropriate supplemental statement of the case, and the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 M. CHEEK H. STERLING, M.D. *38 U.S.C. § 7102(a)(2)(A) (1989) (formerly § 4002(a)(2)(A), recodified in 1991) permits a Board of Veterans' Appeals Section, upon direction of the Chairman of the Board, to proceed with the transaction of business without awaiting assignment of an additional Member to the Section when the Section is composed of fewer than three Members due to absence of a Member, vacancy on the Board or inability of the Member assigned to the Section to serve on the panel. The Chairman has directed that the Section proceed with the transaction of business, including the issuance of decisions, without awaiting the assignment of a third Member. Under 38 U.S.C. 7252 (formerly 38 U.S.C. 4052), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.