Citation Nr: 18149200 Decision Date: 11/08/18 Archive Date: 11/08/18 DOCKET NO. 18-43 606 DATE: November 8, 2018 REMANDED From July 21, 2017, to June 6, 2018, entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for tinea versicolor with onychomycosis (claimed as skin rash) is remanded. From June 7, 2018, entitlement to a compensable rating for tinea versicolor with onychomycosis (claimed as skin rash) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from May 1986 to September 1986 and from October 1990 to July 1996. A hearing was not requested. In June 2017, a statement of the case (SOC) issued, which concluded that a July 2016 notice of disagreement (NOD) associated with a prior increased rating claim for tinea versicolor was not timely filed. This prior tinea versicolor claim was filed on June 10, 2014, and denied in rating decisions dated February 2015 and May 2015. A VA Form 9 has not been filed in response to the June 2017 SOC. For this reason, the Board will not assume jurisdiction at this time over an appeal regarding the timeliness of the July 2016 NOD. The Board will also not assume jurisdiction over a claim of entitlement to service connection for a back disorder. In September 2017, the RO granted service connection for a back disorder on a direct basis. In a November 2017 NOD, the Veteran appealed this decision on the basis that it failed to also compensate him for service connection on a secondary basis. In correspondence dated August 2018, the VA informed the Veteran that he could not appeal the basis of a grant of service connection. The Board agrees and will also not assume jurisdiction over an appeal of the grant of service connection for the Veteran’s back disorder. The Board will also not assume jurisdiction over a claim of entitlement to an earlier effective date for right and left ankle sprains. In June 2017, the RO granted service connection for right and left ankle sprains with initial ratings of 10 percent from April 22, 2016. In August 2017, the Veteran filed an NOD and a VA Form 9, in which he appealed the effective dates of the award. In December 2017, the RO granted an earlier effective date of July 27, 2015, for the Veteran’s ankle sprains. An SOC issued in December 2017. Since a VA Form 9 has not been filed in response to the December 2017 SOC, the Board will not assume jurisdiction over the appeal of the effective dates assigned for the Veteran’s ankle sprains. The Board will also at this time not assume jurisdiction over a claim of entitlement to automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment. In June 2017, the RO denied a claim of entitlement to automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment. In August 2017, the Veteran appealed, filing both an NOD and a VA Form 9. An SOC issued in December 2017. Since a VA Form 9 has not been filed in response to the December 2017 SOC, the Board will not at this time assume jurisdiction over the adaptive equipment claim. With regard to the Veteran’s ankle and adaptive equipment claims, the present case is distinguishable from Archbold and Percy. Unlike in Archbold, in the present case the NOD and VA Form 9 were filed at the same time, SOCs actually issued for each claim after the filing of those documents, and nothing was filed following the issuance of the SOCs. See Archbold v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 124 (1996). Unlike in Percy, after issuance of the SOCs there was no subsequent conduct suggesting that the RO was treating the ankle and adaptive equipment claims as if they remained on appeal. See Percy v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 37 (2009). 1. From July 21, 2017, to June 6, 2018, entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for tinea versicolor with onychomycosis (claimed as skin rash) is remanded. 2. From June 7, 2018, entitlement to a compensable rating for tinea versicolor with onychomycosis (claimed as skin rash) is remanded. The Veteran is service-connected for tinea versicolor from July 10, 1996. On May 4, 2018, the Veteran filed a claim for an increased rating. In June 2018, the RO granted a staged rating of 10 percent from July 21, 2017, and 0 percent from June 7, 2018. The Veteran is appealing the rating aspect of that decision. A remand is required to determine what skin creams, if any, the Veteran has been prescribed and has used. A July 2017 private medical record (received 5/4/18) states that the Veteran is using skin creams but does not identify the skin creams. In an August 2018 VA medical record (received 8/14/18, page 2 of 341), the Veteran states that he does not remember the identify of previously-used skin creams but that he has access to that information in his records. On remand, the RO should attempt to obtain any private medical records indicating skin creams that have been prescribed to or used by the Veteran. The RO should also obtain a medical opinion addressing whether any identified skin creams operate by affecting the body as a whole or act like a corticosteroid or other immunosuppressive drug. See Burton v. Wilkie, No. 16-2037, 2018 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 1314, at *9–20 (Vet. App. Sep. 28, 2018). Additionally, on Remand the RO should obtain all relevant VA treatment records dated from August 2018 to the present before the issues on appeal are decided on the merits. Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran, and, with their assistance, identify any outstanding records of pertinent medical treatment. The RO should then take appropriate measures to obtain copies of any outstanding records identified by the Veteran, including those indicating skin creams and other medication that the Veteran has been prescribed or has used. The Veteran should be notified if any identified records are unavailable and given an opportunity to respond and submit any additional lay evidence or statements. 2. Obtain all VA treatment records from August 2018 to the present. If no records are available, the claims folder must indicate this fact. Any additional records identified by the Veteran during the course of the remand should also be obtained, following the receipt of any necessary authorizations from the Veteran, and associated with the claims file. 3. After obtaining any additional records to the extent possible, an examiner should review the entire claims file, identify all skin treatments prescribed to and used by the Veteran, and provide the following opinions: (a.) Whether any of the skin treatments prescribed to and used by the Veteran operate by affecting the body as a whole. (b.) Whether any of the skin treatments prescribed to and used by the Veteran are like a corticosteroid or other immunosuppressive drug. The examiner should provide a complete rationale for any opinions offered. If the examiner is unable to provide any requested opinion without resort to speculation, he or she should explain why this is so. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Cannon, Associate Counsel