Citation Nr: 18147039 Decision Date: 11/05/18 Archive Date: 11/02/18 DOCKET NO. 16-24 002 DATE: November 5, 2018 REMANDED The claim for service connection for dermatitis (also claimed as skin condition) to include as the result of in-service asbestos exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran honorably served on active duty in the United States Navy from December 1987 to March 1990. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Diego, California. The Veteran seeks service connection for a skin disorder to include dermatitis and/or psoriasis. He alleges that he was exposed to asbestos when he was removing asbestos from a ship, which caused his skin condition. See Veteran’s statement of February 2014. Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service, even if the disability was initially diagnosed after service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The Veteran initially claimed service connection for both dermatitis and psoriasis. His service treatment records document treatment throughout service for a skin condition. Atopic dermatitis was diagnosed in service in 1989, following multiple evaluations and biopsies. After service, he was diagnosed with psoriasis. Private treatment records from after service, show that Veteran had a rash on leg, which was diagnosed as psoriasis. A VA examination was conducted in June 2014, and upon review by a dermatologist, it was determined that the proper diagnosis was a psoriasiform dermatitis, suggestive of psoriasis, but also stated that eczematous could not be entirely excluded. A negative nexus opinion was provided and is inadequate because the examiner did not address the Veteran’s complaint that his rash has never gone away, that his current problem is related to asbestos exposure, or whether his current problem is in anyway related to the skin rashes he experienced in service. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain additional VA treatment records from April 2015 to present. 2. Arrange for a VA examination with medical opinion to address the claim that the Veteran’s current skin problems are related to service to include exposure to asbestos. Whether an in-person examination is required is left to the discretion of the examiner. The electronic records, to include a copy of this remand, should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner, and an opinion as follows is requested: The examiner should list each skin disorder diagnosed since the date of the claim (December 2013). For each disorder, provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that a) The disorder had an onset in service; b) The disorder is otherwise related to service, to include the in-service complaints and treatment of a skin disorder and as a result of exposure to asbestos. The provider should consider all pertinent medical and lay evidence, including statements from the Veteran. Please have the VA examiner specifically review the dermatology treatment records from the VA Medical Center (VAMC). The Veteran noted during treatment at the VAMC in February 2014, that he had additional information he had not previously shared with the VA examiner. He stated that during his military service, he was exposed to asbestos during a time when his ship was docked and he was tasked with removing it. This is when he first noticed a rash on his leg. He was told that this could possibly be related to his exposure and should have a biopsy done. This was close to the time he was to be discharged and did not follow up with the biopsy. A review of the Veteran’s personnel records shows that the Veteran was aboard the USS Belknap CG-26 during part of his service. The Veteran served on active duty in the Navy and his primary Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) was a boiler technician. Based upon this information there is a high probability of asbestos exposure. The examiner should comment on the above and set forth the complete rationale for all opinions. The rationale for a negative opinion must not be based solely on the lack of a relevant in-service diagnosis or clinical findings and must reflect consideration of the competent lay assertions of pertinent symptomatology from service to the present. 3. After completing the above, and other development deemed appropriate, the Veteran’s claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any relief sought remains denied. The Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. MARJORIE A. AUER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD E. Kim, Associate Counsel