Citation Nr: 0006527 Decision Date: 03/10/00 Archive Date: 03/17/00 DOCKET NO. 98-13 746 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to increased disability evaluation for stricture of the urethra, residuals of prostatitis, currently evaluated as 20 percent disabling. 2. Entitlement to a temporary total disability evaluation under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.30 (1999), based on a period of convalescence. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran and spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. N. Booher, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from March 1951 through February 1953. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) on appeal from a March and December 1998 rating decisions by the Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Columbia, South Carolina, which denied the benefits sought on appeal. REMAND A preliminary review of the record discloses that the veteran claims that his service-connected disability of residuals of stricture of the urethra, residuals of prostatitis has increased in severity and warrants a higher disability evaluation. An allegation that a service-connected disability has become more severe is sufficient to establish a well-grounded claim for an increased evaluation. Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1994); Proscelle v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 629, 631-32 (1992). Once a well- grounded claim has been submitted the VA has a duty to assist the veteran in developing the facts pertinent to his claim. The duty to assist includes affording the veteran an examination contemporaneous with his claim. In this regard, the Board would observe that the veteran has not been afforded a VA examination since May 1970. As such, a VA examination would be useful in assessing the severity of his service connected disability. The veteran has also requested a temporary total disability evaluation under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.30 (1999), based on a period of convalescence following surgery for prostate cancer in June 1997. The RO has noted that this treatment was not for a service connected disability. However, statements and testimony from the veteran may be reasonably construed as a claim for service connection for prostate cancer. The issue of whether the veteran's prostate cancer is the result of or is related to the veteran's service-connected disability has not been adjudicated by the RO. The Board finds that this issue is inextricably intertwined with the veteran's claims for an increased disability rating for his service-connected disability and a temporary total disability evaluation for a period of convalescence. Consequently, adjudication of this matter is necessary prior to further action by the Board. Therefore, in order to give the appellant every consideration with respect to the present appeal, it is the Board's opinion that further development of the case is necessary. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The veteran should be contacted and asked to specify the names and addresses of all health care providers who have provided him treatment for his service connected disability since the most recent medical evidence of record dated June 1998. After obtaining any necessary authorization, the RO should obtain and associated those records with the claims file. 2. The veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the severity and manifestations of his service connected disability. Any and all indicated evaluations, studies, and tests deemed necessary by the examiner should be accomplished, and the examiner is requested to report complaints and clinical findings in detail and clinically correlate the complaints and clinical findings to a diagnosed disorder. The clinical findings reported with regard to manifestations of the service connected disability should be stated in terms which will permit an assessment of the disorder in terms of the presence or absence of a voiding dysfunction, urinary frequency, obstructed voiding and urinary tract infection. The examiner is also requested to offer comments and an opinion as to whether the veteran's prostate cancer is causally or etiologically related to his service connected disability. A complete rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. Since it is important "that each disability be viewed in relation to its history[,]" 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (1999), copies of all pertinent medical records in the veteran's claims file or, in the alternative, the claims file, must be made available to the examiner for review. 3. The RO should adjudicate the issue of entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer. If the claim is denied, and the veteran files a Notice of Disagreement and a Substantive Appeal after the issuance of a Statement of the Case, this issue should be included in the veteran's current appeal. When the development requested has been completed, the case should again be reviewed by the RO on the basis of the additional evidence. If the benefits sought are not granted, the appellant and his representative should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case, and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional development, and the Board does not intimate any opinion as to the merits of the case, either favorable or unfavorable, at this time. The appellant is free to submit any additional evidence and/or argument he desires to have considered in connection with his current appeal. No action is required of the appellant until he is notified. RAYMOND F. FERNER Acting 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).