Citation Nr: 1329507 Decision Date: 09/13/13 Archive Date: 09/20/13 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 Since the Veteran failed to report for the hearing, any such request is deemed to have been withdrawn.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 and June 2013. 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). This appeal was processed using the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) paperless claims processing program. Accordingly, any future consideration of this appellant's case must take into consideration the existence of this electronic record. 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). This appeal is REMANDED to the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office. 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 this issue was last before the Board in June 2013, it was determined that further development was needed to include obtaining an opinion specifically addressing the etiology of any diagnosed psychiatric disorder. Specifically, the examiner was to 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 VA opinion was obtained in July 2013. The examiner opined that the Veteran's diagnosed dermatological conditions were not caused by or a result of his military service, specifically exposure to herbicides in Vietnam. He reasoned that the Veteran does not have chloracne which is the only skin condition known to be caused by exposure to Agent Orange. This rationale is, however, inadequate as the examiner only addressed entitlement to service connection for chloracne on a presumptive basis. He did not provide a reasoning as to whether any of the Veteran's diagnosed skin disorders were directly related to service, and if not, why not. The record shows that the Veteran has been diagnosed with several skin disorders. The July 2013 VA examiner, however, failed to address any of them in relation to the appellant's service as requested in the prior remand. The Court has held that a remand by the Board confers on the appellant, as a matter of law, a right to compliance with the remand instructions, and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). As such, another remand 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. Obtain a VA opinion addressing the etiology of any and all diagnosed skin disorders from a qualified VA dermatologist. An additional physical examination of the Veteran is not required unless specifically requested by the reviewing dermatologist. The claims folder and access to Virtual VA and VBMS must be available to the dermatologist. The examiner's review of such, to include BOTH Virtual VA and VBMS must 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 with reference to pertinent evidence supporting the opinion offered 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 all electronic records. 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 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). _________________________________________________ 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).