Citation Nr: 1036632 Decision Date: 09/28/10 Archive Date: 10/05/10 DOCKET NO. 06-35 769 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a chronic skin disability, to include as a result of exposure to herbicides. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. B. Yantz, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1969 to June 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2005 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Columbia, South Carolina. The Board has rephrased the issue as listed on the title page to better reflect the claim on appeal. For reasons explained below, the current appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC) in Washington, DC. VA will notify you if further action is required on your part. REMAND After a review of the record, the Board observes that further development is required prior to adjudicating the Veteran's claim. At his April 1969 pre-induction examination, the Veteran's skin was evaluated as normal, and he reported no history of skin diseases on an accompanying report of medical history. Thereafter, his service treatment records reflect that he was treated for a rash in his groin area in October and November 1970, and again for a rash (assessed as tinea cruris) in his groin area in January and March 1971. However, at his May 1971 service separation examination, his skin was evaluated as normal, and he reported no history of skin diseases on an accompanying report of medical history. As the Veteran served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era, his exposure to an herbicide agent in service is presumed. The Veteran contends that he had a rash on his upper leg when he came home from Vietnam and that he is still bothered by a body rash today. A March 2000 private treatment record noted a three to four week history of pruritic dermatitis on the Veteran's right and left anterior lower legs, and it was also noted that he had had no previous dermatitis of significance. A March 2003 private treatment record noted a two month history of a nonhealing exudative plaque on his left anterior lower leg, as well as occasional itching on the trunk. A June 2003 private skin biopsy revealed that the spot on his left anterior lower leg, which improved with medication but then came back, was nummular eczema. A July 2005 private treatment record noted that the area of nummular eczema on the Veteran's left anterior lower leg started or recurred approximately one year prior and was gradually getting worse. An August 2005 VA treatment record noted that he had eczema on his lower legs bilaterally, and the Veteran alleged that this started after leaving Vietnam. An August 2006 private treatment record again noted that the spots on his skin (thought to be nummular eczema) would stay clear at times for months but then he would have to go back to treatment. As the current evidence of record reflects that the Veteran has been diagnosed with dermatitis and eczema, and because his service treatment records contain reports of treatment for a groin rash on two separate occasions in service, he should now be afforded a VA skin examination with medical opinion in order to determine whether any current skin condition constitutes a chronic disability that arose during service or is otherwise related to any incident of service, including his documented treatment for a groin rash therein. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); see also McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). In addition, in his August 2005 claim, the Veteran indicated that he had undergone an Agent Orange examination for a rash approximately 10 years prior. Therefore, on remand, all relevant ongoing medical records should be obtained, to include the report of any such Agent Orange examination as well as any VA treatment records. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(c) (West 2002); see also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992) (VA medical records are in constructive possession of the agency, and must be obtained if the material could be determinative of the claim). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment of all health care providers who have treated him for a skin condition at any time. After securing any necessary release, the RO/AMC should request any records identified which are not duplicates of those contained in the claims file. If any requested records are unavailable, then the file should be annotated as such and the Veteran should be so notified. In addition, obtain the report of any Agent Orange examination conducted for the Veteran, as well as all current VA treatment records dating since December 2005, from the VA Medical Center in Columbia, South Carolina. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA skin examination to determine the current nature and extent of any chronic skin disability, and to obtain an opinion as to whether any such disorder is possibly related to service. The claims file must be provided to and be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. Any tests or studies deemed necessary should be conducted, and the results should be reported in detail. Following review of the claims file and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should opine as to whether it is more likely, less likely, or at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any current chronic skin disability arose during service or is otherwise related to any incident of service, including the documented treatment of the Veteran on two separate occasions for a groin rash therein. A rationale for all opinions expressed should be provided. 3. After the development requested above has been completed to the extent possible, the record should again be reviewed. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, then the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and be given the opportunity to respond thereto. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter that the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. 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 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2010). _________________________________________________ K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), 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) (2009).