Citation Nr: 21064477
Decision Date: 10/20/21	Archive Date: 10/20/21

DOCKET NO. 18-41 658
DATE: October 20, 2021

REMANDED

Service connection for a skin disability of the right leg is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty in the Air Force from February 1952 to June 1966.  The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a May 2021 hearing and a transcript is of record.  This matter is on appeal from a November 2017 rating decision. 

1. Service connection for a skin disability of the right leg is remanded.

Once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a service connection claim, even if not statutorily obligated to do so, it must provide one that is adequate for purposes of the determination being made.  Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007).  The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in October 2017 and an addendum opinion by a different clinician in November 2017.  The first clinician provided an unfavorable opinion but did not have access to the entirety of the Veteran's service treatment records.  The second clinician did have that access and noted "various pruritis and fungal infections during service," but provided an opinion with regard to service connection that relied on a lack of "documentation of continuity and chronicity of care," which is not a requirement found in the law.  For this reason, a remand is warranted to obtain an additional medical opinion. 

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Arrange for an opinion by an appropriate clinician for the purpose of determining the etiology of the Veteran's skin disability of the right leg.  The entire claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the clinician for review.  A new examination is only required if deemed necessary by the clinician. 

The clinician must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a probability of 50 percent or greater) that any current skin disability of the right leg, including dermatitis, began in service, was caused by service, or is otherwise related to the Veteran's active service. 

The clinician is advised that a disability is considered current if present at any point during the period on appeal, which began on August 10, 2017, the day VA received the Veteran's claim.  

Although an independent review of the claims file is required, the Board calls the clinician's attention to the Veteran's reports of the onset and continuity of his symptoms in his December 2017 Notice of Disagreement and in his testimony during the May 2021 hearing, including his explanation for his decision to treat his skin symptoms on his own.  

The rationale for any opinion expressed should be provided.  Note that a lack of documented treatment, while probative, cannot serve as the sole basis for a negative finding.  If an opinion cannot be made without resort to speculation, the clinician should so state and provide reasoning as to why this is so.

2. Ensure that the directives specified in this remand have been implemented.  If they have not, appropriate corrective action must be undertaken before readjudication. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).  

3. Then, readjudicate the claim.  If the decision is unfavorable to the Veteran, issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case and allow the applicable time for response.  Then, return the case to the Board.

 

 

D. Martz Ames

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Ryan Frank, 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.