Citation Nr: 20057571 Decision Date: 09/01/20 Archive Date: 09/01/20 DOCKET NO. 15-34 976A DATE: September 1, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for infertility has been withdrawn and is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension has been withdrawn and is dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating for tinea pedis of the bilateral feet, to include onychomycosis, is remanded. . FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to service connection for infertility in his January 2019 Board Hearing. 2. The Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to service connection for hypertension in his January 2019 Board Hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to service connection for infertility by the appellant (or his or her authorized representative) have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to service connection for hypertension by the appellant (or his or her authorized representative) have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from January 2004 to January 2008. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a January 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in January 2019, via videoconference. A transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims folder. Previously there was an appeal noted in this case for chronic acquired psychiatric disorder to include depression and anxiety secondary to PTSD, there was no Form 9 filed as to that issue, therefore, it is no longer on appeal. In addition, the Veteran’s representative withdrew the issues of pruritus, sleep disturbance, and foot pain by a March 14, 2016 letter. The Board further notes the Veteran filed a Supplemental Claim for Compensation for obstructive sleep apnea secondary to post traumatic stress disorder in November 2018, with a pending hearing request, therefore this claim is not before the Board at this time. Service Connection 1. Entitlement to service connection for infertility is dismissed. 2. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is dismissed. The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. In the Veteran’s January 2019 Board Hearing, the Veteran’s representative expressed their wishes to withdraw his infertility and hypertension issues. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review these claims, and they are therefore dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to an increased rating for tinea pedis of the bilateral feet, to include onychomycosis is remanded. A remand is necessary to afford the Veteran a VA examination to determine the current severity of his tinea pedis of the bilateral feet. A review of the record suggests that this condition has worsened in severity since the last VA compensation and pension examination in August 2014. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). In addition, the Board finds the August 2014 examination inadequate as the examiner stated that the Veteran had been prescribed an oral antifungal approximately one year ago, however, the examiner did not discuss the total duration of the oral medication used in the past 12 months, which is needed in reviewing the severity of the Veteran’s tinea pedis under 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7806. In addition, during the 2019 Board Hearing, the Veteran’s representative stated that the Veteran’s tinea pedis had worsened and the Veteran testified that he had to discontinue the use of oral treatments due to the side effects of headaches. The representative noted that the Veteran now has to constantly use topical steroid treatment for his tinea pedis. Therefore, the Board, would also like clarification as to whether the Veteran’s constant use of the topical steroids are considered systemic therapy under either the prior criteria or amended criteria of 38 C.F.R. § 4.118. As such, the Veteran must be scheduled for a new VA examination to assess the current severity of his tinea pedis of the bilateral feet to include onychomycosis. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of his service-connected tinea pedis to include onychomycosis. The examiner should complete the following: a.) The examiner should elicit a history from the Veteran as to the progression of his tinea pedis and provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria for the period on appeal. b.) The examiner must acknowledge prior treatment with oral terbinafine or Lamisil tables, and determine with what frequency and for how long the oral medications have been administered. c.) The examiner must ascertain whether the Veteran requires / has been prescribed topical therapy and discuss whether such mediation is considered a systemic therapy like or similar to corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs. A detailed rationale for the opinions must be provided. If the examiner is unable to offer the requested opinion, it is essential that the examiner offer a rationale for the need to 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. 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.