BVA Case 23-0608: Ptsd

Parties'Arguments The appellant first argues that the Board failed to ensure that VA satisfied its predecisional duty to assist him because VA did not provide a medical examination to assess the residuals of his service-connected bladder cancer.

Alternatively,he asserts that the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases for its implicit conclusion that VA satisfied its duty to assist, id.

Again,in the alternative,the appellant argues that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for its implicit conclusion that the Board member complied with his duties under 3.

The Board noted that the rating criteria for renal dysfunction had changed during the pendency of the appeal,but because the [appellant]does not exhibit any renal dysfunction, his condition had been rated on the basis of voiding dysfunction, which the Board explained is categorized as urine leakage,urine frequency,or obstructed voiding.

In discussing renal dysfunction,the Board found that the [appellant's]medical records do not reflect any kidney disease or dysfunction, noting that the Board member who conducted the August 2022 hearing attempted to elicit information responsive to such evaluation under the pre- November 2021 rating criteria.

The Board concluded that [t]here is no evidence that [the appellant's]hypertension or atrial fibrillation is related to kidney disease,as there is no evidence of kidney disease, and that [t]he general medical journal articles [the appellant submitted].

Further,the Board found that, [t]o the extent the [appellant's] representative intended the[articles]to support a secondary service connection claim,such matters are not before the Board.

In light of that discussion,the Board concluded that voiding dysfunction is the predominant residual of the [appellant's]bladder cancer.