Citation Nr: 20054590 Decision Date: 08/18/20 Archive Date: 08/18/20 DOCKET NO. 19-22 494A DATE: August 18, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 (2012) for residuals from a removal of a back abscess is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Air Force from January 1962 to January 1966. This matter is on appeal from a June 2017 rating decision. 1. Entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for residuals from a removal of a back abscess is remanded. VA must provide an examination with regard to a claim for disability compensation when there is competent evidence of a disability that may be associated with an in-service disease, injury or event, but there is insufficient information to make a decision on the claim. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The Veteran contends that improper treatment caused a cyst on his back to recur and the site to remain symptomatic. He also contends that the experience of this treatment caused psychiatric symptoms. The Veteran’s VA treatment records note recurrence of the cyst, subsequent surgery, and continuing symptoms. The threshold for determining whether the evidence “indicates” that there “may” be a nexus between a current disability and an in-service event, injury, or disease is a low one. Id., at 83. This evidence meets that threshold, and medical opinions are necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Arrange for the Veteran to have physical or telehealth examinations by appropriate clinicians for the purpose of determining the nature of any skin and psychiatric symptoms that may be residuals of the Veteran’s August 2015 removal of a back abscess. The claims file must be made available to the clinicians for review. The clinicians must provide opinions as to the following: a. Whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has a skin or psychiatric disability that is proximately due to or the result of (1) carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or similar instance of fault on the part of VA, or (2) an event not reasonably foreseeable. b. Whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has a skin or psychiatric disability that was aggravated (worsened beyond its natural progression) by (1) carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or similar instance of fault on the part of VA, or (2) an event not reasonably foreseeable. Although an independent review of the claims file is required, the Board calls the clinicians’ attention to the Veteran’s April 2017, March 2018, and August 2019 statements regarding the chronology of his treatment and symptoms, as well as the photographs he submitted in April 2017. The rationale for any opinion expressed should be provided. If an opinion cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner should so state and provide reasoning as to why a conclusion would be so outside the norm that such an opinion is not possible. 2. Ensure that the directives specified in this remand have been implemented.  If they have not, appropriate corrective action must be undertaken before readjudication. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). 3. Then, readjudicate the claim. If the decision is unfavorable to the Veteran, then issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case and allow the applicable time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Ryan Frank, 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.