Citation Nr: 21005137 Decision Date: 01/29/21 Archive Date: 01/29/21 DOCKET NO. 17-11 259 DATE: January 29, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for skin cancer on the neck, right arm and head is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from December 1952 to September 1979, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam from November 1965 to November 1966. This matter is on appeal from an April 2015 rating decision. In October 2017, the Veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. In January 2018, the Board remanded the claim for further development. In November 2019, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for skin cancer and an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran appealed the denial of the claim of entitlement to service connection for skin cancer to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a December 2020 Order, the Court granted a December 2020 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) that vacated and remanded that portion of the November 2019 Board decision that denied entitlement to service connection for skin cancer. In the JMPR the Parties agreed that the Board erred when it did not ensure compliance with its previous remand instructions or satisfy VA’s duty to assist. Specifically, in the July 2019 addendum opinion the examiner failed to specifically address the Veteran’s assertions regarding hazardous chemical exposure and sun exposure as requested by the Board’s January 2018 remand. The July 2019 VA examiner also erroneously noted no skin problems in service, but a January 1978 service treatment note indicates an 8mm round hyperpigmented macule on the right temporal region. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, and due to the inadequacies in the July 2019addendum opinion, the Board must remand the claim for an addendum as to whether the Veteran’s skin cancer is related to his active service. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an appropriate addendum by an examiner, other than the July 2019 VA examiner, regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed skin cancer. Unless the examiner finds that a new examination is required, the Veteran need not be examined again. The claims file, including a copy of the January 2018 remand and December 2020 Joint Motion for Partial Remand, must be made available to the examiner for review who should indicate that the claims file was reviewed. The examiner should provide the following opinion: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or more probability) that any skin disorder, claimed as skin cancer, diagnosed at any time during the course of the appeal, had its onset in or is etiologically-related to the Veteran’s active duty service from December 1952 to September 1979 to include service in the Republic of Vietnam from November 1965 to November 1966. For purposes of this decision, the examiner is to assume that the Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent (i.e., Agent Orange) from his verified service in Vietnam and exposed to hazardous chemicals associated with his over 20 years of working as an aircraft mechanic. The examiner is asked to consider and discuss as necessary the pertinent evidence of record to include the Veteran’s lay statements and complaints concerning the onset of his skin disorder, including those made to medical providers. Specifically, the examiner is asked to address the Veteran’s assertions regarding: a) the hazardous materials and solvents such as paint remover and astringent carcinogens and belief that such exposure contributed to his skin disorder and b) constant sun exposure on the flight line which he contends contributed to his skin disorder. The Board, by this remand, makes no determination, expressed or implied, concerning the credibility of any statements on file. The report of examination should include the complete rationale for all opinions expressed. The phrase “at least as likely as not” does not mean within the realm of medical possibility, but rather the weight of medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of that conclusion as it is to find against it. If an opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain why it would be speculative to respond. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Adams, 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.