Citation Nr: 21064278 Decision Date: 10/19/21 Archive Date: 10/19/21 DOCKET NO. 17-35 123 DATE: October 19, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence having been submitted, the claim of entitlement to service connection for a skin condition on the feet, hands, and head is reopened. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition on the feet, hands, and head, is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A July 2013 rating decision denied service connection for a skin condition on the feet, hands, and head. The Veteran did not appeal and no new and material evidence was submitted within one year of the July 2013 rating decision. 2. At the time of the July 2013 rating decision, the record did not contain evidence showing a nexus to service. Subsequent to that decision, the Veteran gave additional argument during a Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) hearing. This evidence is new and material and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. . CONCLUSION OF LAW New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a skin condition on the feet, hands, and head. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 3.156, 20.302. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1989 to May 1992, including overseas service in Panama and Saudi Arabia. The Veteran appeals a June 2016 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). A Board hearing was held in February 2021. A transcript is of record. As an initial matter, May 2017 correspondence raised the issue of CUE as to the July 2013 rating decision. However, the AOJ has not adjudicated the issue regarding CUE in the July 2013 rating decision and, as such, the CUE issue is not before the Board and will be discussed no further herein. The Board finds the appeal should be remanded to afford the Veteran an examination and obtain a medical opinion. The Veteran stated that his skin condition started on his feet during service while in Panama and continued to present. See July 2012 VA Form 21-526; August 2012 VA treatment records; February 2021 Board Heart Tr. at 3-5, 7. The skin condition would then allegedly spread to the Veteran's fingers and head. Id. At 6. August 2012 VA treatment records noted trouble with the feet and skin. Based on this evidence, the Veteran should be afforded an examination for an opinion to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's skin condition. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA and/or private treatment records relevant to treatment the Veteran received for his skin condition that are not already of record, to include treatment records from Winston-Salem and Kernersville VA medical facilities. All obtained records should be associated with the evidentiary record. If any identified records are not obtainable (or none exist), the Veteran and his representative should be notified, and the record clearly documented. 2. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the nature and etiology of his skin condition. The evidentiary record, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. After the record review and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should identify all skin conditions present. Then, the examiner is asked to respond to the following inquiries: Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's skin condition was incurred in, or otherwise related, to his time on active service, to include, but not limited to, wearing damp boots in Panama or exposure to any environmental hazards while deployed to Southwest Asia? (The examiner is to consider the Veteran's statements of having skin condition symptoms on his feet since Panama). If a skin condition is diagnosed, is the etiology OR pathophysiology of the condition not conclusive as to this particular Veteran? In rendering these opinions, the examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history. Such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the examiner rejects the Veteran's reports, he or she must provide an explanation for such rejection. The examiner is not to improperly discount the Veteran's lay statements or mistakenly rely on an absence of medical evidence in the record to support his or her conclusions. A complete rationale for all opinions should be set forth and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. If an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner must provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered. In so doing, the examiner must explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question(s). 3. After the above development has been completed to the extent possible, readjudicate the claim. If any benefit sought remains denied, provide the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), and return the case to the Board, if otherwise in order. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Zheng, 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.