Citation Nr: 0000465 Decision Date: 01/06/00 Archive Date: 01/11/00 DOCKET NO. 98-17 456 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Louisville, Kentucky THE ISSUE Entitlement to a compensable rating for a left varicocele. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and his spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Thomas H. O'Shay, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from December 1967 to November 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a June 1998 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Louisville, Kentucky. This case was remanded by the Board in September 1999 in order to afford the veteran a hearing before a traveling member of the Board. The veteran testified before the undersigned member of the Board at a hearing held at the RO in October 1999. This case was thereafter returned to the Board in October 1999. The Board notes that the veteran, at his October 1999 hearing before the undersigned, withdrew, in writing, his appeal with respect to the issue of entitlement to service connection for amputation of toes of the left foot. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (1999). REMAND Briefly, the veteran contends that the evaluation currently assigned his left varicocele does not accurately reflect the severity of that disability. The record reflects that the veteran was afforded a VA examination in November 1998, at which time he complained of some bulging of the left scrotum with heavy lifting, but denied any left testicle or groin pain. Physical examination disclosed the presence of a small palpable left varicocele without thrombi, with no evidence of inguinal hernia. The examiner notably did not address whether the veteran exhibited any pain on exertion. At his October 1999 hearing before the undersigned the veteran testified that he in fact experienced pain associated with his varicocele approximately twice each week, and that pain was also present with exertion. He also alleged that the pain he experienced impaired his normal functioning. Under the circumstances, the Board concludes that another VA examination of the veteran is warranted. The Board also notes that the veteran has alleged treatment at the Lexington, Kentucky VA Medical Center (VAMC) from 1996 to the present. There is no indication that the RO has sought to obtain medical records for the veteran from that facility. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he identify the names, addresses and approximate dates of treatment for all health care providers, VA and private, who may possess additional records pertinent to his claim. With any necessary authorization from the veteran, the RO should attempt to obtain and associate with the claims file any medical records identified by the veteran which have not been secured previously. In any event, the RO should obtain medical records from the Lexington, Kentucky VAMC for January 1996 to the present. 2. Then, the RO should arrange for the veteran to undergo a VA examination by a physician with appropriate expertise to determine the nature and extent of impairment from the veteran's left varicocele. All indicated studies should be performed and all findings should be reported in detail. The examiner should specifically be requested to provide findings with respect to any tenderness, pain, or functional limitation, to include with exertion, associated with the service-connected left varicocele. The rationale for all opinions expressed should be explained. The veteran's claims file must be made available to the examiner for review. The examination report is to reflect that a review of the claims file was made. The examination report must be typed. 3. Thereafter, the RO should review the claims file and ensure that the above development actions, including the requested examination, have been conducted and completed in full. Then, the RO should undertake any other indicated development and readjudicate the issue of entitlement to a compensable rating for a left varicocele. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the veteran's satisfaction, the RO should issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afford the veteran and his representative an appropriate opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. By this REMAND, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is otherwise notified by the RO. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded to the regional office. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This case must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West Supp. 1999) (Historical and Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44- 8.45 and 38.02-38.03. SHANE A. DURKIN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 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. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1999).