Citation Nr: 18140885 Decision Date: 10/09/18 Archive Date: 10/09/18 DOCKET NO. 16-26 677 DATE: October 9, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial compensable rating prior to April 9, 2013, and in excess of 10 percent on and after April 9, 2013, for service-connected mycosis fungoides. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1967 to June 1969. A July 2013 rating decision granted service connection for mycosis fungoides and assigned a noncompensable rating, effective July 17, 2012. The Veteran filed a June 2014 notice of disagreement regarding the rating assigned. An April 2016 rating decision assigned an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for mycosis fungoides, effective November 25, 1981. A noncompensable rating was assigned from November 25, 1981, and a 10 percent evaluation was assigned, effective April 9, 2013. A statement of the case was issued at that time. Remand is required for an examination and retrospective opinion as the most recent examination was in 2014 and due to a lack of medical records over the lengthy time period. See Chotta v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 80 (2008); Vigil v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 63 (2008) (holding that the duty to assist may include development of medical evidence through a retrospective medical evaluation where there is a lack of medical evidence for the time period being rated). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the appropriate VA Medical Center and obtain and associate with the claims file all outstanding records of treatment on and after July 16, 2015. If any requested records are not available, or the search for any such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact must clearly be documented in the claims file. Efforts to obtain these records must continue until it is determined that they do not exist or that further attempts to obtain them would be futile. The non-existence or unavailability of such records must be verified and this should be documented for the record. Required notice must be provided to the Veteran and his representative. 2. Contact the Veteran and afford him the opportunity to identify by name, address and dates of treatment or examination any relevant non-VA medical records. Subsequently, and after securing the proper authorizations where necessary, make arrangements to obtain all the records of treatment or examination from all the sources listed by the appellant which are not already on file. All information obtained must be made part of the file. All attempts to secure this evidence must be documented in the claims file, and if, after making reasonable efforts to obtain named records, they are not able to be secured, provide the required notice and opportunity to respond to the Veteran and his representative.   3. After any additional records are associated with the claims file, provide the Veteran with an appropriate examination to determine the severity of the service-connected mycosis fungoides. The entire claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated tests and studies must be accomplished and all clinical findings must be reported in detail and correlated to a specific diagnosis. An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. The relevant Disability Benefits Questionnaire must be utilized. In addition, the examiner must provide, if possible, estimates regarding the severity of the mycosis fungoides effective November 25, 1981. The examiner must elicit from the Veteran a full history of the disease since that time period. 4. After completing the above action, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the paragraphs above, the claim must be adjudicated. In doing so, the AOJ must address the changes in the ratings schedule pertaining to the skin, including those of August 2002 and October 2008. If the claim remains denied, a supplemental statement of the case must be provided to the Veteran and the representative. After the Veteran and his representative have had an adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review. K. MILLIKAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD David Nelson