Citation Nr: 20011985 Decision Date: 02/12/20 Archive Date: 02/12/20 DOCKET NO. 13-00 535A DATE: February 12, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for a left arm scar is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1989 to November 2009. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2010 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which granted the Veteran service connection for a left arm scar at a noncompensable disability rating. In February 2018, the Board remanded the Veteran’s claim to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for further action consistent with the Board’s remand directives. Specifically, the Board remanded to afford the Veteran a VA examination. The claim is back before the Board for further appellate proceedings. In addition to specifically addressing the Veteran’s January 2013 contentions, the Board remand required the examiner to describe all symptoms of the Veteran’s left scar with explanations provided for all medical opinions. As explained below, the examination provided to the Veteran did not address these directives. Regrettably, the Board finds that further evidentiary development is necessary and remands the case to ensure compliance with the Board’s prior remand instructions. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The Veteran contends that she is entitled to compensation for her left arm scar. In particular, she contends that her scar symptomatology includes pain, hypersensitivity with the feeling of crawling ants over the scar, feelings of a “shockwave” traveling down to the wrist, inability to carry objects on her arm for more than a minute, itching, and numbness at certain parts of the scar. See March 2011, January 2013, March 2014, and March 2019 correspondences; see also January 2013 and May 2018 spouse statements. Additionally, the Veteran contends that her left arm scar includes a small extension described as a dot about a half inch above her “main scar.” See June 2018 correspondence. Her spouse has also noted several instances of treatment that the Veteran received in relation to her scar. See May 2018 spouse statement. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in October 2019. The examination report, however, did not account for the Veteran’s lay statements regarding functional impact or the treatment she received. See October 2019 VA examination report. Indeed, the examiner noted no pain on palpation with no further explanation despite the Veteran’s consistent statements of pain throughout the appellate period. Id. Thus, the examination is inadequate for adjudicative purposes. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 33 Vet. App. 295 (2008). On remand, the AOJ must afford the Veteran a new VA examination to determine the current severity of her left arm scar. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA and/or private treatment records relevant to treatment the Veteran received for her left arm scar that are not already of record. All obtained records should be associated with the evidentiary record. If any identified records are not obtainable (or none exist), the Veteran and her representative should be notified, and the record clearly documented. 2. After the above has been completed, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate examiner to determine the current severity of her service-connected left arm scar. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria, to include the criteria prior to and after the 2018 amendments. The examiner should discuss the Veteran’s contentions described in correspondence received in March 2011 January 2013, March 2014, June 2018, and March 2019, to include functional impact and an extension of her scar. The examiner should also discuss any treatments the Veteran has received for her left arm scar. See May 2018 spouse statement. 3. After the above has been completed to the extent possible, readjudicate the claims. If any benefit sought remains denied, provide the Veteran and her representative with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), and return the case to the Board. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Strickland 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.