Citation Nr: 21004786 Decision Date: 01/28/21 Archive Date: 01/28/21 DOCKET NO. 16-52 549 DATE: January 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a dermatological disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1966 to March 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a March 2015 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran appeared for a hearing in April 2019 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) concerning the issues of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to a dermatological disability, and to an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for sinusitis. In an August 2019 decision, the Board denied the earlier effective date claim and remanded the issue of service connection for a dermatological disability for further development, to include providing VA examinations and updating VA treatment records. The Board also reopened and remanded the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, which was subsequently granted by the RO in a September 2020 rating decision. Finally, the Board remanded the issue of an increased rating for sinusitis for readjudication in a statement of the case (SOC). A SOC was issued in October 2020; however, the Veteran did not file a substantive appeal. Accordingly, that issue is not before the Board. Also discussed at the Board hearing were the issues of entitlement to service connection for a dental disability for treatment purposes and for an asbestos-related respiratory disability. These claims were remanded by a January 2020 Board decision for additional development, which has not yet been completed; consequently, they have not yet been returned to the Board. Upon their return to the Board, these issues will be addressed by the undersigned VLJ in a later decision. Accordingly, the remaining claim presently before the Board is entitlement to service connection for a dermatological disability. Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board’s August 2019 remand directives. Another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for a dermatological disability is remanded. In the August 2019 remand, the Board directed that, while exposure to asbestos has not been definitively shown by the record, an opinion on whether his current diagnoses can be attributed to asbestos, or otherwise to his service, should be obtained. In a February 2020 opinion, the December 2019 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s skin condition was not related to service because the condition did not occur during his service and his discharge examination was normal for skin. However, the examiner failed to discuss whether the Veteran’s skin condition is due to his asserted exposure to asbestos and did not consider the Veteran’s testimony that he first saw a dermatologist in 1993. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records. 2. Thereafter, obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the Veteran’s skin condition(s). The examiner is asked to answer the following questions: (a.) Is it as likely as not (50/50 probability or greater) that any skin disability is related to his service, to include claimed exposure to asbestos? (b.) Is asbestos exposure known to lead to any of the Veteran’s diagnosed dermatological disabilities? The Veteran is diagnosed with acne necrotica. He reports he first had symptoms while still in service. His treatment records show that it was diagnosed in September 2008, after he had complained of having chemical sores for years. He was counseled at that time on the chronicity of the disease. He has attributed the sores to asbestos exposure, which his physician appeared to find possible. See VA treatment records dated February 2012. The Veteran testified that he first sought treatment for skin conditions in 1993. See April 2019 Board hearing transcript. The Veteran reports that he was exposed to asbestos working on pipes and furnaces in Fort Benning and Fort Gordon. His MOS was as a Lineman. A lack of documentation of symptoms or treatment is not dispositive of the question. The examiner must provide a complete explanation for all opinions. If the examiner is unable to render the requested opinions without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state whether there is inadequate factual information, whether the question falls beyond the knowledge of the examiner, whether the question falls beyond the scope of the medical community, or another reason. The need for additional physical examination of the Veteran is left to the discretion of the examiner. Nathaniel J. Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K.L. Blevins, 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.