Citation Nr: 20004449 Decision Date: 01/21/20 Archive Date: 01/21/20 DOCKET NO. 13-18 966 DATE: January 21, 2020 REMANDED Whether the reduction of the evaluation for service-connected tinea pedis from 50 percent disabling to noncompensable was proper, to include entitlement to an increased rating for tinea pedis, currently evaluated as noncompensable is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1971 to November 1974 April 1966 to April 1991. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2011 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Diego, California. In October 2017 a hearing was held in this matter before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of the hearing is of record. This case was previously before the Board in January 2018 when it was remanded for additional development. The case has now returned to the Board for further appellate action. Whether the reduction of the evaluation for service-connected tinea pedis from 50 percent disabling to noncompensable was proper, to include entitlement to an increased rating for tinea pedis, currently evaluated as noncompensable is remanded. The Board regrets further delay in this case but finds that a remand is once again necessary to ensure compliance with the Board’s previous remand instructions. In January 2018 the Board last remanded this matter in order to obtain outstanding private medical treatment records and to obtain a new VA examination. The January 2018 Board remand directed the RO to obtain any necessary authorizations from the Veteran obtain and associated with claims file any relevant, outstanding private treatment records. The record indicates that in November 2018, the Veteran was directed to return the enclosed VA Form 21-4142 for authorization and consent to obtain such records. However, there is no indication that the Veteran completed such form. Therefore, the Veteran is notified that the duty to assist is a two-way-street. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). Additionally, in the January 2018 Board remand, the RO was directed to provide a medical examination to the Veteran and specifically address the Veteran’s lay statements regarding his symptoms, including symptoms during any flare-ups and the frequency of any such incidents. In October 2019, the Veteran was provided another VA examination where the examiner noted the Veteran stated that he has foot pain, itchiness, and lesions. However, the examiner has not addressed symptoms during any flare-ups and the frequency of any such incidents. Also, the examiner did not discuss the Veteran’s lay statements regarding his inability to wear shoes as stated in his October 2017 hearing. Therefore, the Board finds that this opinion is inadequate and does not comply with the prior remand directives. See Barr. v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Accordingly, the matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Write the Veteran and request that he provide the signed VA Form 21-4142 for authorization and consent to obtain his outstanding private treatment records. 2. After associating all outstanding private and VA treatment records with the claims file, schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the current level of severity of his service-connected bilateral tinea pedis. The examiner should specifically address the Veteran’s lay statements regarding his symptoms, including symptoms during any flare-ups and the frequency of any such incidents. The claims file should be made available to the examiner for review in conjunction with the examination, and the examiner should acknowledge such review in the examination report. If an examiner is unable to offer the requested opinion, it is essential that the examiner offer a rationale for the conclusion that an opinion could not be provided without resort to speculation, together with a statement as to whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. See Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382 (2010). The complete bases for all medical opinions must be provided. M. H. HAWLEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Johnson, 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.