Citation Nr: 21003928 Decision Date: 01/25/21 Archive Date: 01/25/21 DOCKET NO. 14-31 726A DATE: January 25, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder, initially claimed as a chronic jock itch is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had military service from June to August 1992 and from January 1993 to October 1995. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a February 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran requested a hearing before the Board, and one was scheduled in May 2019. However, his representative cancelled the hearing and withdrew the request. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder, initially claimed as a chronic jock itch is remanded. In compliance with a June 2019 Board remand the Veteran was provided a September 2020 VAX. He reported that he developed scrotal pruritis around 1994. The VA medical examiner determined that his scrotal pruritis had an unknown etiology. No rationale was provided for this determination. Such is particularly vexing as the Veteran is now service connected for rashes (skin disorders) affecting other areas of the body, i.e. tinea pedis. Whenever VA undertakes to either provide an VAX or to obtain an opinion, it must ensure that the VAX or opinion is adequate. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). Here, the medical opinion is inadequate because no rationale was provided, and an addendum opinion is needed. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion from the VA examiner who conducted the September 2020 VAX. The claims file, including a complete copy of this remand, must be made available to the examiner for review of the pertinent medical and other history. Based on a review of the record the VA examiner should address whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s scrotal pruritis had its initial onset in service or is otherwise etiologically related to service. In so doing, the examiner should state whether there is any evidence to accept or reject the proposition that the Veteran experienced scrotal pruritis around 1994. If the report of scrotal pruritis is accepted, the examiner should discuss the clinical significance of such in-service complaints and any current chronic skin disorder of the groin area. The clinical significance, if any of the Veteran being diagnosed as having tinea pedis must also be addressed. Rationale must be provided for all requested opinions. Discussion and citation of supporting medical treatise/research would be very helpful. If the examiner concludes that an opinion cannot be offered without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner must address whether research in the medical literature might assist him/her in providing the medical opinion requested in this matter, and if so, such research in the medical literature must be conducted. The examiner must also indicate whether any use of the phrase "without resorting to mere speculation" reflects the limitations of knowledge in the medical community at large as opposed to the limits of his/her knowledge and expertise in particular. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Smith, 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.