Citation Nr: 21004697 Decision Date: 01/27/21 Archive Date: 01/27/21 DOCKET NO. 14-07 071 DATE: January 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for cellulitis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1990 to October 1994. In a March 2018 decision, the Board (in pertinent part) denied entitlement to service connection for cellulitis. The Veteran appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In October 2019, the Court issued a memorandum decision that vacated the March 2018 Board decision with respect to that part of the decision that denied service connection for cellulitis and remanded the issue to the Board for action in compliance with the instructions in the memorandum decision. The basis for the Court’s remand, as set out in the October 2019 Memorandum Decision, was that the Board erred in relying on an inadequate medical examination in denying the Veteran’s claim. The Court stated that the examination was not conducted during a flare-up, which the Veteran reported to occur at least four times per year, in the spring and summer when the weather was hot. See September 2012 VA examination report and March 2016 hearing transcript. In June 2020, the Board remanded this claim (in pertinent part) for an additional VA examination during a flare-up of the claimed condition. Although the Veteran underwent a VA skin diseases examination in October 2020, no attempt was made to schedule the examination during a flare-up. Furthermore, the examination was not conducted in the spring or summer, when the Veteran has reported his condition is active on his legs. Notably, the prior VA examinations have been conducted during autumn months with findings made that the claimed condition could not be diagnosed because it was not present on examination. As the Veteran has indicated the claimed condition is not present unless on flare-up, such as during the warmer months, this was the basis for the June 2020 remand. The Board regrets the additional delay in this matter. However, given the Agency of Original Jurisdiction’s failure to comply with the Board’s remand instructions, another remand is required. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature, extent, and etiology of any cellulitis (as distinguished from any other skin disability, to include dermatitis). Given the intermittent nature of this condition, concerted efforts should be made to coordinate the scheduling of the examination with the Veteran so that it is performed at a time when cellulitis is active (during warmer weather as reported by the Veteran). All efforts to schedule the examination must be documented in the claims file. The electronic claims file, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the examination. All indicated tests should be conducted, and the reports of any such studies incorporated into the examination reports to be associated with the claims file. The examiner should provide opinions on the following: A) Identify any cellulitis the Veteran has had during the pendency of this claim (since July 2011), including on current examination. B) For any diagnosed cellulitis, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that such skin condition is related or attributable to the Veteran’s military service, to include his treatment for cellulitis in December 1990? A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinions. The examiner should also consider the material from the Mayo Clinic generally describing the nature and cause of cellulitis that was received in February 2918. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports of symptomatology, a reason for doing so must be provided. (Continued on the next page)   If the examiner cannot provide a requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the examiner must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. The examiner must indicate whether there was any further need for information or testing necessary to make a determination. Additionally, the examiner must indicate whether any opinion could not be rendered due to limitations of knowledge in the medical community at large and not those of the particular examiner. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. R. Fletcher, 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.