Citation Nr: 19190878 Decision Date: 12/03/19 Archive Date: 12/03/19 DOCKET NO. 15-39 186 DATE: December 3, 2019 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for eczema for the period prior to November 6, 2017, and a rating in excess of 60 percent for the period from November 6, 2017 is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for polycystic ovary syndrome in excess of 10 percent is remanded. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served honorably in the Air Force from August 1995 to June 2007. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an August 2015 rating decision from the Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that, in pertinent part, denied assignment of compensable rating for eczema and polycystic ovary syndrome. A May 2019 rating decision granted a 10 percent rating for the Veteran’s eczema from April 20, 2015 (date of claim) and a 60 percent rating from November 6, 2017, and increased the rating for polycystic ovary syndrome to 10 percent effective June 22, 2015 (date of claim). The issues only appeal have recharacterized to reflect that development. In April 2017, the Veteran testified at a personal hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the transcript is in the record. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for eczema for the period prior to November 6, 2017, and a rating in excess of 60 percent for the period from November 6, 2017 is remanded. As discussed above, a May 2019 rating decision granted a 10 percent rating for the Veteran’s eczema from April 20, 2015 and a 60 percent rating from November 6, 2017. The RO construed this action as “a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal.” That finding is not accurate. First, the 60 percent rating was not assigned from the Veteran’s date of claim, which was April 20, 2015. Second, as noted in the rating decision, a higher rating could potentially be assigned under Diagnostic Code 7800 as opposed to Diagnostic Code 7806. Under 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 (b)(1) the RO is required to issue a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) addressing this period on appeal and the evidence, including examination reports, prepared therein. The ability to waive initial RO consideration pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 (c) is also not applicable in the instant case. 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 (c) is only applicable if the evidence was previously considered by the agency of original jurisdiction and it was properly discussed in any prior SOC or SSOC. No such consideration has occurred. Indeed, a similar oversight was discussed in the Board’s September 2018 remand. A remand is once again required. Under 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 (b)(1), the AOJ will furnish the appellant and his or her representative a SSOC if the AOJ receives additional pertinent evidence after a statement of the case (SOC) or the most recent SSOC has been issued and before the appeal is certified to the Board and the appellate record is transferred to the Board. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for polycystic ovary syndrome is remanded. As discussed in the 2018 remand, the Veteran asserts that her polycystic ovary syndrome causes irregular menstruation and infertility as a result of the disorder, and that the only treatment offered to her had been birth control medication as hormone therapy to control her irregular menstruation which did not address her fertility issues. Treatment records indicate the Veteran has been attempting to get pregnant for several years and has been treated in the past with clomid and attempted pregnancy by artificial insemination without success. See October 2017 OBGYN and June 2006 Mental Health Clinic. Treatment records indicate the Veteran has continued to seek treatment for infertility, being seen at USF Reproductive Endocrinology and is taking Norethindrone Acetate for infertility. See February 2018 Pharmacy Consult. A July 2015 VA examination noted symptoms of the disorder, including intermittent, moderate pain and irregular menstruation, but noted that she was not taking medications or receiving treatment. No comments as to infertility were provided. Similarly, when she was examined in February 2019, the examiner noted the Veteran’s report of infertility. However, no additional findings were made with respect to whether was a clinical diagnosis of infertility had been established; and, if so, whether the Veteran’s polycystic ovary syndrome, or treatment related thereto, had caused or aggravated the infertility. For these reasons, another Remand for an addendum opinion is deemed necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should issue a SSOC regarding the claim of entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for eczema for the period prior to November 6, 2017, and a rating in excess of 60 percent for the period from November 6, 2017. The RO should make sure to address all evidence added to the file since issuing its September 2015 statement of the case. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of the Veteran’s service-connected polycystic ovary syndrome. A new physical examination should be provided if deemed necessary. The examiner should provide a full description of the Veteran’s polycystic ovary syndrome and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the disability under the rating criteria. In particular, the examiner should indicate whether the Veteran’s polycystic ovary syndrome or treatment related thereto has resulted in infertility. The examiner must address the Veteran’s assertion of infertility and the treatment records from October 2017 OBGYN, June 2006 Mental Health Clinic, February 2018 Pharmacy Consult and December 2013 OBGYN. Rationale for the requested opinion shall be provided. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, provide an explanation stating why this is so. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Smith, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.