Citation Nr: 21067048 Decision Date: 11/03/21 Archive Date: 11/03/21 DOCKET NO. 14-02 013 DATE: November 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a skin disease, to include chloracne and eczema, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1969 to December 1970. The Veteran's exposure to herbicide agents is presumed based on his service in the Republic of Vietnam. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2013 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board notes that the Veteran testified at a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge, who is no longer employed by the Board, in August 2016. A transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims file. In December 2020, the Veteran was offered another opportunity for a hearing; however, the Veteran did not respond within 30 days. Additionally, the Veteran's representative submitted an appellate brief in October 2021 but provided no indication that a hearing was desired. Therefore, the Board will continue review of the appeal. Board decisions in June 2018 and February 2021, amongst other things, remanded the above claims for additional development. Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board's previous remand directive and another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disease, to include chloracne and eczema. In this case, the February 2021 Board remand directed the RO to "[o]btain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician to determine the etiology of the Veteran's claimed skin disorder, diagnosed as eczema." See BVA Decision (February 2021). However, no opinion was obtained. An internal VA document from June 2021 reflects that the Veteran stated that he did not wish to attend any VA examinations. Notably, no statement in support of claim, report of contact, or report of general information was associated with the claims file reflecting the Veteran's desire to not attend an examination. The July 2021 Supplemental Statement of the Case stated that the "[e]vidence does not show "good cause" for not attending your scheduled examination; therefore, we will not reschedule the examination until you notify us you are willing to report." See SSOC (July 2021). However, the record shows no notice letter of the scheduled VA examination, which is required to be prepared and sent to the Veteran. Additionally, the record shows no report of telephone contact with the Veteran informing him of the scheduled VA examination. In any event, the previous Board remand directed that an addendum opinion be obtained. There was no directive to provide an examination. Whether the Veteran is willing or not to attend an examination does not prevent the RO from obtaining an addendum opinion, as directed in the previous Board remand. Further, the evidence shows that the Veteran has continued to pursue his appeal. The Veteran provided no indication that he desired to withdrawal his appeal in response to a June 2021 VA correspondence. Additionally, the Veteran's representative submitted an appellate brief in October 2021, which continued to request service connection for a skin disease and TDIU. Therefore, to ensure compliance with the Board's previous remand directive, another remand is required. A remand by the Board imposes upon the Secretary of VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand. Where remand orders of the Board are not complied with, the Board errs in failing to ensure compliance. Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. 2. Entitlement to a TDIU. The claim of entitlement to a TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the claim being remanded. Therefore, the Board must defer consideration of that claim at this time. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 181 (1991) (two or more claims are inextricably intertwined if one claim could have significant impact on the other). Accordingly, the matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the etiology of any skin condition diagnosed during the period on appeal, to include a previously diagnosed rash and eczema. The entire claims file, to include a copy of this REMAND, should be made available to and reviewed by the clinician. The clinician is asked to respond to the following: Is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnosed skin condition made during the appeal period, to include a previously diagnosed rash and eczema, had its onset in service or is otherwise related to service, to include conceded herbicide agent exposure. Please indicate whether any of the identified conditions is a form of chloracne. A complete rationale for the conclusion(s) provided is required. NOTE (1): An adequate medical opinion may not be predicated solely on the absence of an in-service diagnosis or documented complaints. NOTE (2): An adequate medical opinion may not be predicated solely on the absence of medical studies or literature supporting causation or aggravation. NOTE (3): A adequate medical opinion may not be predicated solely on the absence of the condition in the list of diseases enumerated in VA regulations as associated with exposure to herbicide agents. 2. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal, including the inextricably intertwined issue of entitlement to a TDIU. If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. Rebecca N. Poulson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Thaddaeus J. Cox, 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.