Citation Nr: 20003779 Decision Date: 01/16/20 Archive Date: 01/15/20 DOCKET NO. 12-16 535A DATE: January 16, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from November 1969 to September 1971. In August 2012, the Veteran died, and his surviving spouse was substituted as the Appellant in May 2013. This claim was remanded by the Board for further development in September 2013, October 2014, and June 2015. As discussed below, the Board finds that there was not substantial compliance with the January 2015 remand directives for the issue on appeal as discussed below. This case cannot move forward. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder is remanded. Unfortunately, this claim must be remanded again. As noted above, the Board last remanded this appeal in June 2015 for a VA opinion pertaining to the pathology of the Veteran’s skin disorder. The VA examiner was asked to provide an addendum opinion concerning the Veteran’s skin disorder as related to herbicide exposure. The examiner was also specifically asked to provide an opinion concerning the Veteran’s various service-connected disabilities and the onset of his skin disorder. The examiner provided an opinion that herbicide exposure did not cause the onset of the Veteran’s claimed skin disorder. She also explained that herbicide exposure causes the onset of chlorine acne and not the Veteran’s currently diagnosed skin disorder. However, the examiner did not address the private examiners conflicting opinion which linked the Veteran’s skin disorder to herbicide exposure. Moreover, the examiner did not address, nor did she provide any rationale concerning the Veteran’s service-connected disorders as they relate to the onset of his skin disorder. This claim is remanded for a VA examiner opinion concerning the pathology of the Veteran’s skin disorder as it relates to herbicide exposure and/or secondary to his service-connected lower back and coronary arteriosclerosis disorders. As a result, the Board concludes that a VA opinion is necessary to determine the etiology of the Veteran’s skin disorder. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the record to an appropriate examiner. The examiner should review the record and provide a full description of all symptoms and manifestations associated with the Veteran’s skin disorder. The examiners opinion should address in detail the following: (a) Taking into consideration that the Veteran’s skin disorder, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any skin disorder is related to the herbicide exposure? The examiner is to specifically discuss in detail the private examiner’s opinion that his skin disorder is related to or was aggravated by his in-service herbicide exposure. If a skin disorder related to herbicide exposure is not found, that should be specifically set out in detail with the factors considered in making that determination. (b) Taking into consideration that the Veteran is service-connected for lower back and coronary arteriosclerosis disorders, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any of his service-connected disorders are related the onset of the Veteran’s skin disorder? The examiner is to specifically discuss, in detail, the Appellant’s contention that his skin disorder is related to or was aggravated by his service-connected disabilities. The examiner should also discuss in detail any impact a diagnosed lower back and coronary arteriosclerosis disorder might have concerning the onset of a skin disorder. If a skin disorder related to a lower back or coronary arteriosclerosis disorder is not found, that should be specifically set out in detail with the factors considered in making that determination. Please provide a complete rationale for all opinions entered. If the examiner cannot provide any of the requested opinions, he/she must affirm that all procurable and assembled data was fully considered, and a detailed rationale must be provided for why an opinion cannot be rendered.   2. The AOJ must ensure that the examiner’s reports comply with this remand and answers the questions presented in the request. The AOJ must also ensure that the examiner documents consideration of the electronic claims file, including any records contained in Virtual claims file, including any records contained in Virtual VA and VBMS. If the report is insufficient, the AOJ should take corrective action. MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Elliot Harris, 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.