Citation Nr: 21067224 Decision Date: 11/03/21 Archive Date: 11/03/21 DOCKET NO. 16-43 938 DATE: November 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for skin disabilities, to include skin cancer, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from November 1966 to October 1968. In July 2021 correspondence, the Veteran was notified that the Veterans Law Judge who presided over his May 2019 Board hearing was no longer at the Board and of his right to request a new hearing. The Veteran did not respond to the correspondence, and thus, he is deemed to not want another hearing. Accordingly, the Board will proceed with the claim on appeal. In October 2020, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) denied the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for skin disabilities, to include skin cancer. The Veteran appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). Pursuant to a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), the Court vacated and remanded the October 2020 Board decision, finding that the July 2020 medical opinion that served as the basis for the denial was inadequate. While the July 2020 examiner discussed whether the Veteran's claimed skin disabilities were due to his conceded herbicide exposure, the examiner provided no opinion concerning whether they were related to the Veteran's conceded exposure to jet fuel, to include consideration of an article from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that addressed whether jet fuel can cause skin tumors with repeated or prolonged contact. Additionally, the examiner failed to consider whether the Veteran's claimed skin disabilities were caused by in-service sun exposure without proper sun protection. Finally, the Court noted that the examiner did not consider the Veteran's specific condition and circumstances, inappropriately relying on a lack of medical literature to support a relationship between an herbicide agent and the claimed condition. Bailey v. O'Rourke, 30 Vet. App. 54, 60 (2018). The Board will remand the claim for an addendum opinion that rectifies these inadequacies. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician that is responsive to the following: (a.) Is it as least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's claimed skin disabilities, to include skin cancer, are caused by or related to service, including as due to his conceded exposure to herbicide agents? In addressing this question, the examiner is instructed to consider the Veteran's conceded in-service herbicide agent exposure and the Veteran's specific conditions and circumstances as required under Bailey. (b.) Is it as least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's claimed skin disabilities, to include skin cancer, are caused by or related to service, including as due to his conceded exposure to jet fuel? In addressing this question, the examiner is instructed to consider the NIH article that addressed whether jet fuel can cause skin tumors with repeated or prolonged contact. The examiner is also instructed to consider both presumptive and direct causation and the Veteran's statements regarding continuity of symptoms. (c.) Is it as least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's claimed skin disabilities, to include skin cancer, are caused by or related to service, including as due to exposure to sunlight without adequate sun protection? The examiner should also consider all lay statements submitted by the Veteran regarding his claimed skin disabilities, to include skin cancer. A rationale for all opinions is to be provided. If the examiner cannot provide any of the requested opinions without resorting to speculation, he or she should provide an explanation stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner should 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). JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Bush 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.