Citation Nr: 18150687
Decision Date: 11/15/18	Archive Date: 11/15/18

DOCKET NO. 13-32 775
DATE:	November 15, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from December 1967 to November 1970. 
This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a December 2011 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Jackson, Mississippi.  The Veteran and his wife appeared at a hearing before a Decision Review Officer (DRO) in February 2015, a transcript of which is associated with the claims file.   
In July 2016, the Board remanded this matter, in part, to obtain an opinion as to whether the Veteran had a skin disorder related to service.  The examiner was requested to address the Veteran’s contentions that he has had intermittent skin rashes since service.  The opinion was provided in November 2016; however, as noted in the Board’s January 2018 remand, the VA examiner did not address the Veteran’s statements regarding his intermittent rash that had been ongoing since service.  The Board’s instructions included obtaining another VA opinion in which the examiner directly addressed the Veteran’s contentions.  Another opinion was provided in July 2018.  The VA examiner opined that it was less likely as not that the Veteran’s skin disorder was related to service.  Unfortunately, the examiner again did not address the Veteran’s competent contentions that he has experienced a skin rash intermittently since service and rather appeared to focus solely on the fact that the Veteran did not report ongoing skin issues at discharge/separation from service and did not have an active skin disease process occurring at the time of discharge/separation from service.  A remand by the Board confers on the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998).  In addition, as the examiner noted that he found the language of the Board’s remand, including the list of diagnosed skin disorders—hyperpigmentation, eczema, dermatitis, xerosis, and seborrheic keratosis to be “somewhat obfuscatory”, the Board finds that it would be appropriate to request an opinion from another provider.  
Finally, as the critical issue here is the medical professional’s consideration of the Veteran’s contention that he has experienced ongoing rash issues since military service, it will be necessary to take a full history from the Veteran concerning the characteristics, symptoms, and frequency of the rash since service.  Therefore, an examination of the Veteran is necessary.     
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician (who has not previously opined on this matter) to determine the nature and etiology of any skin disorder reflected by the record.  The examiner must opine whether any current skin disorder, to specifically include hyperpigmentation to the trunk and arms, eczema, dermatitis, xerosis, and seborrheic keratosis (all of which are noted in the Veteran’s post-service medical records), had its onset in service or is related to any in-service disease, event, or injury, to include the skin issues noted in the Veteran’s service treatment records.  
The examiner must take a full history from the Veteran and address his competent reports of having intermittent skin rashes since service.  The examiner must then discuss the significance of these post-service symptoms in determining the etiology of the current condition or conditions and whether they are related to the Veteran’s military service and to the skin conditions noted in his service treatment records.

 
M. HYLAND
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	M. Harrigan Smith