BVA9502555 DOCKET NO. 93-08 688 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio THE ISSUE Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for epididymitis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: AMVETS ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J.R. King, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant served on active duty from October 1987 to October 1991. This matter is before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 1992 rating determination of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) located in Cleveland, Ohio, which granted service connection and assigned a noncompensable evaluation for epididymitis and denied service connection for a left hydrocele. The appellant testified at a personal hearing at the RO in July 1992. The hearing officer rendered a January 1993 decision in which the appellant's claim for service connection for a left hydrocele was granted, and a noncompensable evaluation was assigned by subsequent rating decision dated in January 1993. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The appellant and his representative assert that the service- connected epididymitis causes intermittent, severe painful symptomatology warranting a compensable disability rating. It is also requested that the provisions of 38 C.F.R.§ 3.324 be applied in this case to furnish the appellant a compensable evaluation. 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(s). 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 an increased (compensable) rating for epididymitis, but it supports a single 10 percent rating for multiple noncompensable service- connected disabilities under authority of 38 C.F.R.§ 3.324. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The appellant's service-connected epididymitis is manifested by "no special tenderness in the area" on most recent VA examination in December 1992. 2. His service-connected left hydrocele is communicating with the peritoneal cavity and empties from time to time. 3. His service-connected noncompensable disabilities cause him occasional, intense pain, requiring him to sit down at work. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The schedular criteria for a compensable rating for epididymitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A.§§ 1155, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R.§§ 4.20, 4.27, Diagnostic Codes 7599-7523 (1993). 2. Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the veteran, his two service-connected disabilities are of such character as to clearly interfere with normal employability. 38 U.S.C.A.§ 5107(b) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R.§ 3.324 (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The veteran in this case contends that his service-connected epididymitis causes him adequate symptomatology to warrant a compensable disability evaluation under the rating criteria. As his condition (epididymitis) is not listed specifically in the VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities (38 C.F.R. Part 4), it is permissible to rate it under a closely related disease or injury in which not only the functions affected, but the anatomical localization and symptomatology are closely analogous. 38 C.F.R.§§ 4.20, 4.27. By analogy to complete atrophy of a testis, a zero percent rating is applicable. When both testes are atrophied, the rating warranted is 20 percent. Diagnostic Codes 7599-7523. On VA medical examination conducted in December1991, the veteran's right testicle was found to be normal, and his left testicle appeared slightly twisted. The epididymis was slightly enlarged and tender. The diagnosis was chronic epididymitis. In July 1992, the veteran testified at a personal hearing at the RO to the effect that his service-connected disability was "worse at times" and sometimes causes him intense pain, requiring him "to sit down and try to calm down, even though I might not be doing nothing." He further stated that he worked at the post office, and that he cannot do any heavy lifting or run and play with his children without experiencing some pain. On additional VA genitourinary examination, conducted in December 1992, the veteran's right testicle was again normal and his left testicle was situated somewhat high in the scrotum. Swelling of a fluid nature, believed to be a hydrocele, was noted. There was "no special tenderness" in the area of the epididymis. The diagnoses were history of epididymitis and a left hydrocele, believed to be communicating with the peritoneal cavity which empties from time to time. The foregoing pathology does not appear to rise to the level of a compensable disability evaluation under the applicable rating criteria, neither does the service-connected disability picture in this case more nearly approximate the criteria required for a compensable rating, but it is the judgment of the undersigned that the veteran's testimony at the recent hearing was credible. As that testimony indicated that he has occasional pain in the genitourinary area on heavy exertion and with running, and as this would occasion clear interference with his normal employment, it is believed that the assignment of a single 10 percent disability rating under the provisions of 38 C.F.R.§ 3.324 is justified in this case. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) ORDER A single 10 percent disability rating under 38 C.F.R.§ 3.324 is granted. J.F. GOUGH 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. 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.