Citation Nr: 1303568 Decision Date: 02/01/13 Archive Date: 02/08/13 DOCKET NO. 08-28 303 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Denver, Colorado THE ISSUE Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for tinea versicolor (hereinafter a skin disorder), prior to February 16, 2010. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Sean Kendall, Attorney WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. D. Jackson, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1969 to November 1971. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2006 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Diego, California. The case has since been transferred to the Denver, Colorado RO. The Veteran testified at a Board hearing at the RO in Denver, Colorado in June 2011. This transcript has been associated with the file. In a February 2011 rating action, the Veteran was granted entitlement to an evaluation of 60 percent, effective February 16, 2010 for his skin disorder. At the June 2011 Board hearing he testified that he was not appealing entitlement to a higher evaluation as of February 16, 2010 for his skin disorder. As such, this decision is limited to the issue listed on the first page. In a decision dated in August 2011, the Board also denied entitlement to a higher evaluation as of February 16, 2010, for his skin disorder. The Veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the Court). In an Order dated in March 2012, the Court vacated the Board's August 2011 decision, and remanded the issue back to the Board for development consistent with the Court's Order. In order to comply with these instructions, the Board, in turn, is remanding this claim to the RO. VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required. REMAND The parties to the Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) agreed that the Board failed to consider potentially relevant evidence. In particular, a set of photographs that were submitted by the Veteran together with an October 2007 Statement in Support of Claim. These photographs were reportedly taken by a Dr. Dectradeur. The parties found that the Board failed to discuss the photographs. Subsequent to the JMR, the Veteran's attorney, in a statement dated in December 2012, requested that the Board remand for another examination so that the photographs could be analyzed. Prior to the vacated decision, a VA examination was conducted in February 2010. The VA examiners made no mention of these photographs as well as photographs that were submitted earlier in May 2006. Prior to February 16, 2010, the Veteran was assigned a 30 percent evaluation for his skin disorder pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7806. Under that diagnostic code, a 30 percent disability evaluation is assigned for dermatitis or eczema that involves 20 to 40 percent of the entire body or 20 to 40 percent of exposed areas affected, or; systemic therapy such as corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs required for a total duration of six weeks or more, but not constantly, during the past 12-month period. A 60 percent evaluation is warranted where there is dermatitis or eczema that involves more than 40 percent of the entire body or more than 40 percent of exposed areas affected, or; constant or near-constant systemic therapy such as corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs required during the past 12-month period. Id. As the Board is unable to distinguish his service connected skin disorder, these photographs may be useful to a trained medical professional in determining the area covered by the service connected skin disease. The claims file should be provided to the February 2010 examiners, if available, to provide an addendum opinion as to the manifestations of the Veteran's service-connected tinea versicolor, at the time of the photographs. In particular whether tinea versicolor involved more than 40 percent of the entire body or more than 40 percent of exposed areas affected. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The claims folder, including this remand, must be sent to the VA examiner for review; consideration of such should be reflected in the completed examination report or in an addendum. The examiner must note review of the photographs submitted by the Veteran and, if feasible, should report the percentage of the Veteran's entire body and the percentage of his exposed areas affected by the service-connected skin disability. The examiner should also note any systemic therapy that had been provided for the Veteran's service-connected skin disability during the prior 12 month period and the frequency and duration of any such treatment. 2. After the above development has been completed, the RO should readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters 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. 2012). _________________________________________________ K. Parakkal 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) (2012).