BVA9506146 DOCKET NO. 93-13 390 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin THE ISSUE Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for a chronic genitourinary disorder claimed as a bladder infection and prostatitis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Alice A. Booher, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had service from October 1967 to October 1969. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a chronic genitourinary disorder claimed as a bladder infection in April 1987. The veteran was informed and did not file a timely appeal. In 1992, the veteran submitted evidence to reopen his claim for a chronic genitourinary disorder claimed as prostatitis. This appeal is from a rating action by the RO in August 1992. The Board notes that the veteran has moved to Texas. REMAND The veteran's service medical records show that in 1969, he was treated for acute urethritis. Later in 1969, he had complaints of possible kidney trouble in the past; he had low back pain, urinary burning and gross hematuria. Diagnosis was chronic prostatitis. On a VA examination in 1987, the veteran reported that he had been treated by Doctors Slomovitz and Wersinthal since 1985 for bladder infections; on examination he said he had had problems for about 5 years. The veteran reported on a VA psychiatric examination at that time that he had worked on construction in Texas from separation in 1969 until 1972. He was concerned that his bladder infections could not be cured. Evidence submitted by the veteran with his claim to reopen in 1992 include clinical reports for treatment by private and VA facilities for various complaints including relating to urinary difficulties commencing in 1975 and since. The RO requested that the veteran provide additional medical evidence relating to his postservice care. The veteran, in his VA Form 9, reported that he had been unable to afford to travel the distance to any VA facility for VA care, so he had been treated privately in Mexico where it was cheaper. After the case was forwarded to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board), the veteran submitted several statements dated in 1993 from a Mexican physician, Dr. Miguel Rojas Hernandez, relating to care of the veteran for chronic prostatitis on several occasions in 1993; it is unclear whether the physician had treated the veteran prior to 1993. All of these documents are in Spanish and have not been translated. Pursuant to regulatory criteria, evidence submitted to the Board must be referred to the RO for review and preparation of a supplemental statement of the case unless this procedural right is waived by the veteran. Since such a waiver was not provided in this case, this evidence must be referred back to the RO. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c) (1994). Based on the evidence of record, the Board finds that the case must be REMANDED for the following actions, to be undertaken by whatever RO is determined to now have jurisdiction: 1. The veteran should be requested to identify any other physicians who may have treated him for genitourinary complaints since service, particularly in the period from 1969 to 1975 while he was working construction in Texas. After appropriate release, the RO should attempt to obtain copies of complete records of all such care, including the veteran's complete clinical folders from Dr. Slomovitz, 1672 South 9th Street, Milwaukee, WI; Dr. Wersinthal, Mount Sinai Hospital in Milwaukee; and Dr. Rojas Hernandez. 2. The veteran should then be examined by a VA physician who has not previously examined him, to determine the nature and etiology of all current genitourinary complaints. The examiner should conduct all necessary laboratory and other testing. Prior to evaluating the veteran's case, the examiner must be given the claims folder, a copy of this REMAND, and all evidence obtained pursuant to this REMAND. The examiner should express an opinion as to the etiological relationship, if any, between the veteran's genitourinary complaints in 1969 and any current disability exhibited, identifying evidence in the file which supports such conclusions. 3. Thereafter, the RO should review the case with regard to all of the evidence of record. If the decision remains unsatisfactory, a supplemental statement of the case should be prepared, and the veteran and his representative should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond. Prior to returning the case to the Board, all documents obtained pursuant to this REMAND, as well as all statements in the file from Dr. Rojas Hernandez dated in 1993, which are in Spanish, must be translated into English in accordance with pertinent regulations relating thereto, and the certified English translations should accompany each document. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review. The veteran need do nothing further until so notified. THOMAS J. DANNAHER Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals 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. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), 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. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1994).