Citation Nr: 1319644 Decision Date: 06/18/13 Archive Date: 06/27/13 DOCKET NO. 06-10 290 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Huntington, West Virginia THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability to include chloracne also claimed as due to exposure to Agent Orange. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. S. Willie, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1969 to October 1970. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2005 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Huntington, West Virginia. The RO scheduled the Veteran for a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge in March 2011. Since the Veteran failed to report for the hearing, any such request is deemed to have been withdrawn. This case was remanded by the Board for further development in August 2011. The Board notes that although the Veteran initially filed a claim for service connection for chloracne, the Board has restyled the issue to include any potentially relevant skin claims raised by the record. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002). The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The Veteran appeals the denial of entitlement to service connection for a skin disability. When he was seen in July 2004, the Veteran reported recurrent sores on his head, trunk, arms and legs since his return from Vietnam. An examination by a physician's assistant yielded a diagnosis of chloracne on the scalp, neck, back, chest, arms and legs, with ice pick scars, comedones, papules and pustules all over. The examiner opined that the Veteran had very severe chloracne. It was indicated it was possibly related to Agent Orange exposure. This issue was remanded in August 2011 to afford the Veteran a VA examination. In the October 2012 VA examination, neurodermatitis, milliaria and seborrheic keratosis were diagnosed. The examiner found that the Veteran did not have chloracne. He did not address the etiology of any diagnosed skin disorder. The records shows that the Veteran has been diagnosed with several skin disorders. Although he was afforded a VA examination in October 2012, the examiner did not address the etiology of any diagnosed skin disorder. In light of the Veteran's assertions and the skin diagnoses of record, the Board finds than an opinion addressing the etiology of any diagnosed skin disorder is necessary for proper adjudication of the claim. In view of VA's duty to assist obligations, which include the duty to obtain a VA examination or opinion when necessary to decide a claim, and based upon guidance from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims remand for the purpose of obtaining a VA opinion is required. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: (Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). Expedited handling is requested.) 1. The claims folder should be returned to the October 2012 VA examiner for an addendum. If that examiner is not available, the records must be forwarded to a qualified VA dermatologist. Additional physical examination of the Veteran is not required unless specifically requested by the reviewing dermatologist. The claims folder and access to Virtual VA must be available to the dermatologist and review of such should be documented in the report. After review of the record, the dermatologist must opine whether any diagnosed skin disorder is at least as likely as not related to active military service to include presumed exposure to herbicides. A fully reasoned rationale is required for all opinions. 2. After the development requested has been completed, the AMC/RO should review the examination report to ensure that it is in complete compliance with the directives of this REMAND. The AMC/RO must ensure that the examiner has documented his/her review of all pertinent records to include Virtual VA. If the report is deficient in any manner, the AMC/RO must implement corrective procedures at once. 3. Upon completion of the above requested development and any additional development deemed appropriate, the AMC/RO must readjudicate the issue. All applicable laws and regulations must be considered. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the appellant and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. The appellant 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 REMAND must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims remanded by the Board or the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B , 7112 (West Supp. 2012). _________________________________________________ DEREK R. BROWN 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).