Citation Nr: 20009972 Decision Date: 02/06/20 Archive Date: 02/05/20 DOCKET NO. 13-32 302 DATE: February 6, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably from June 1971 to June 1974. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and February 2018 Board remand. In November 2016, the Veteran presented testimony at a video hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. Bilateral Eye disorder First, remand is required for substantial compliance with the February 2018 remand. The Board is obligated by law to ensure that the RO complies with its directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). RO compliance with remand directives is not optional or discretionary and the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure remand compliance. Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. The Board remanded the appeal in February 2018. The VA examiner was asked to provide an opinion for all currently diagnosed bilateral eye disorders. The remand directives stated, “If any previously diagnosed bilateral eye disorders (dry eye, nuclear sclerosis, and cataracts) are not found on examination, an explanation must be provided.” The Veteran received a VA examination in October 2019. The examiner diagnosed pseudophakia from cataract surgery and glaucoma. The examiner provided one opinion for both diagnoses. The examiner failed to address previously diagnosed the bilateral eye disorders of dry eye and nuclear sclerosis. Accordingly, remand is required to comply with the February 2018 remand directives. Second, remand is required for an adequate opinion. Where VA provides the veteran with an examination in a service connection claim, the examination must be adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). In January 2020, the Veteran’s representative submitted a statement and cited two medical articles that indicated flash from welding can produce cataracts. Accordingly, remand is required to address this additional evidence. Skin disorder Remand is required for an adequate VA opinion. Where VA provides the veteran with an examination in a service connection claim, the examination must be adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). When a Veteran has provided competent lay statements of an in-service injury, the examiner must consider and address them when developing his rationale. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39-40 (2007) (holding that when the Veteran has provided lay testimony of an in-service injury, an examiner cannot ignore that lay evidence and base his or her opinion that there is no relationship to service on the absence of in-service corroborating medical records). The Board remanded the issue in February 2018. The examiner was instructed that the Veteran is competent to attest to factual matters of which he has first-hand knowledge. Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005) (noting that a lay witness is competent to report to factual matters of which he or she has first-hand knowledge). The Veteran received a new VA examination in October 2019. The examiner opined the current skin disorder was less likely than not incurred in or caused by service. Th examiner noted the Veteran was diagnosed with contact dermatitis in service, but noted that atopic dermatitis was diagnosed decades later and a nexus could not be established. During the November 2016 Board hearing, the Veteran indicated he has had itching and rash flare-ups since service. The October 2019 VA examination failed to address the Veteran’s lay statements. Accordingly, remand is required for a new opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the appropriate VA Medical Center and obtain and associate with the claims file all outstanding records of treatment. If any requested records are not available, or the search for any such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact must clearly be documented in the claims file. Efforts to obtain these records must continue until it is determined that they do not exist or that further attempts to obtain them would be futile. The non-existence or unavailability of such records must be verified, and this should be documented for the record. Required notice must be provided to the Veteran and his representative. 2. Contact the Veteran and afford him the opportunity to identify by name, address and dates of treatment or examination any relevant medical records. Subsequently, and after securing the proper authorizations where necessary, make arrangements to obtain all the records of treatment or examination from all the sources listed by the Veteran which are not already on file. All information obtained must be made part of the file. All attempts to secure this evidence must be documented in the claims file, and if, after making reasonable efforts to obtain named records, they are not able to be secured, provide the required notice and opportunity to respond to the Veteran and his representative. 3. After any additional records are associated with the claims file, provide the Veteran with an appropriate examination to determine the etiology of his bilateral eye disorder. The entire claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated tests and studies must be accomplished, and all clinical findings must be reported in detail and correlated to a specific diagnosis. An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. First, the examiner must identify all current bilateral eye disorders. If any previously diagnosed bilateral eye disorders (dry eye, nuclear sclerosis, cataracts, pseudophakia, and glaucoma) are not found on examination an explanation must be provided. Second, for each diagnosed bilateral eye disorder, the examiner must provide an opinion regarding whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the bilateral eye disorder had onset in, or is otherwise related to, active military service. The examiner must address the following: 1) the Veteran’s assertions of an in-service welding that led to flash burns; 2) the service treatment records (STRs) including a December 1971 record noting a flash burn to both eyes, and an April 1972 optometry note regarding eye watering; and 3) the two medical articles, submitted in January 2020 that indicated flashes from welding can produce cataracts. 4. After any additional records are associated with the claims file, obtain an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of the skin disorder from a VA examiner. The entire claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. If an examination is deemed necessary, it shall be provided. An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. The examiner must provide an opinion regarding whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the skin disorder had onset in, or is otherwise related to, active service. The examiner must address the following: 1) Veteran’s contentions that rashes and itching began in service and have flared up since that time; 2) a November 1972 STR that diagnosed contact dermatitis; and 3) an October 1973 STR that indicated neck rash for one year with no improvement. 5. Notify the Veteran that it is his responsibility to report for any scheduled examination and to cooperate in the development of the claims, and that the consequences for failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158, 3.655 (2019). In the event that the Veteran does not report for any scheduled examination, documentation must be obtained which shows that notice scheduling the examination was sent to the last known address. It must also be indicated whether any notice that was sent was returned as undeliverable. K. MILLIKAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Bruton, 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.