BVA9501035 DOCKET NO. 93-00 182 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for prostatitis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. F. Gussio, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from May 1942 to January 1946. This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arises from a September 1991 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In August 1993, this case was remanded to the RO for further development. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that his service-connected prostatitis has increased in severity and warrants a compensable rating. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim for an increased (compensable) rating for prostatitis. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's appeal has been obtained by the RO. 2. The veteran's prostatitis is not shown to be currently active; his current symptoms involving the prostate are attributed to cancer of the prostate, which is not service connected. CONCLUSION OF LAW A compensable evaluation for prostatitis is not warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107(b) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.115(a) and Part 4, Code 7527. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The veteran's claim is well grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (1991). That is, it is plausible. In August 1993, the Board remanded this case to the RO for further development, including a VA examination. The Board is now satisfied that all relevant facts have been properly developed. No further assistance to the veteran is required in order to comply with the duty to assist him as mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). Disability evaluations, in general, are intended to compensate for the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from service-connected disability. They are primarily determined by comparing objective clinical findings with the criteria set forth in the rating schedule. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. Part 4, (1993). The veteran's service medical records reveal that he developed prostatitis in service. On his separation examination in January 1946, prostatitis, intermittent discharge, was noted. Service connection for prostatitis was established effective in January 1946, and the disorder has been evaluated noncompensable since that time. VA outpatient treatment and hospital records show that the veteran had various complaints, including nocturnal frequency, in January and April 1989. On VA examination in September 1989, the veteran complained of increased frequency, with nocturia 6 to 7 times. Clinical evaluation revealed that the prostate was enlarged and benign. Urinalysis was negative. He was advised regarding cystoscopy and possible transurethral resection of the prostate. In October 1989, the veteran was admitted to a VA hospital. The diagnosis was obstructive prostatic hypertrophy. He declined any surgical intervention at that time. Treatment records for 1990 and 1991 show treatment for variously diagnosed disorders. In November 1990, nocturia (2-3 times/night) and stream weakness were reported. In June 1992, the veteran underwent transurethral resection of the prostate and carcinoma of the prostate was discovered. Subsequent records show related treatment, including for a blocked Foley catheter. He received radiation therapy for carcinoma of the prostate from September 1992 to October 1992. In November 1992, the diagnosis was S/P radiation treatment for carcinoma of the prostate. On VA examination in November 1993, the veteran reported that he had frequency and could not control his urinations. Sometimes he wet himself. Physical evaluation revealed that the prostate felt hard, retracted, small, atrophic, and sensitive to touch. The veteran stated that he had urination every two hours. There was no pain on urination. He was incontinent sometime or most of the time. The physician opined that the veteran's symptoms of urinary incontinence were secondary to surgery. The diagnosis was S/P transurethral resection of the prostate and radiation for cancer of the prostate. The residuals of prostate gland injuries, surgery, infections, or hypertrophy, are evaluated as voiding dysfunction or urinary tract infection, whichever is predominant. 38 C.F.R. Part 4, Code 7527. Urinary tract infection manifested by long-term therapy, 1-2 hospitalizations per year, and/or requiring intermittent intensive management warrants a 10 percent rating. Voiding dysfunctions requiring the wearing of absorbent materials which must be changed less than 2 times per day warrant a minimum 20 percent rating. Urinary frequency, with daytime voiding interval between two and three hours or awakening to void two times per night, warrants a 10 percent rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.115a, Part 4. In every instance where the minimum schedular evaluation requires residuals and the schedule does not provide a noncompensable evaluation, a noncompensable evaluation will be assigned when the required residuals are not shown. 38 C.F.R § 4.31, Part 4 (1993). To warrant a compensable evaluation for service-connected prostatitis, the medical evidence must show that the veteran currently has active symptoms of the disorder. Here, no active symptoms of prostatitis are demonstrated. The veteran has daytime and nocturnal frequency and incontinence. However, on the most recent VA examination those complaints were attributed to his nonservice-connected carcinoma of the prostate with transurethral resection and radiation therapy. He has submitted no evidence showing that any complaints or current pathology are attributable to the service-connected disorder. In the absence of evidence of current disability attributable to the service- connected prostatitis, a compensable rating for that disorder is not warranted. Consideration has been given to the potential application of the various provisions of 38 C.F.R. Parts 3 and 4, whether or not they were raised by the veteran, as required by Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589 (1991). In particular, we find that the evidence discussed above does not suggest that the veteran's service-connected prostatitis present such an exceptional or unusual disability picture as to render impractical the application of the regular schedular standards so as to warrant an assignment of an extraschedular evaluation under 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). In the absence of any current symptoms attributed to prostatitis, there is no basis for assigning a compensable rating for the disorder. ORDER A compensable evaluation for prostatitis is denied. GEORGE R. SENYK Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.