Citation Nr: 21072462 Decision Date: 12/03/21 Archive Date: 12/03/21 DOCKET NO. 14-19 210 DATE: December 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for sun/skin sensitivity, to include multiple skin issues of seborrheic keratosis, dermatofibroma, and lentigo, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1965 to March 1969. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a September 2015 Board Hearing. A transcript has been associated with the claims file. Most recently, the Board denied the above-listed claim in a September 2020 Board Decision. The Veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), and the CAVC issued an order granting the parties' July 2021 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) to set aside the September 2020 Board decision and remanded the case back to the Board for compliance with the JMR. As discussed below, the terms of the JMR require remand to obtain an adequate medical opinion. In the July 2021 JMR, the parties agreed that the October 2019 VA examiner's opinion is inadequate as it fails to adequately consider and address lay reports of symptoms starting in-service and continuing to the present as well as favorable medical evidence in the VA treatment records. The Board must remand the claim to obtain an adequate opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's VA treatment records for the period from September 2021 to the Present. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether each of the Veteran's multiple skin issues is at least as likely as not related to his active service, to include presumed exposure to herbicide agents (e.g., Agent Orange) and chemicals such as jet fuel. The examiner must provide an opinion with respect to each of the Veteran's skin conditions, including, but not necessarily limited to, lentigos, seborrheic keratosis, skin tags, intertrigo, xerosis, dermatitis, and folliculitis. Regardless of whether the conditions are disabling, the examiner must provide nexus opinions for all of the Veteran's skin conditions. In providing the opinion, the examiner must consider and address the lay reports of symptoms starting in service and continuing to the present and VA treatment records documenting the Veteran's reports of onset of symptoms during service. Specifically, the following evidence must be considered: a. The Veteran's 2011 claim that he "developed the sun/skin sensitivity" in service after repeated exposure to jet fuel; b. His report that his symptoms began between "June 1967 March 1969"; c. His contention that his service medical records do not contain records of all treatment he sought because he flew in and out of areas in Vietnam that "did not have or keep records"; d. A January 2013 letter in which he reported that, during his deployment, he noticed "dry spots on his skin and a burning feeling to any skin expose[d] to direct sunlight," especially when in Da Nang; e. His report in an April 2014 letter that, "[i]n 1969, I didn't know I had a skin problem other than that my body felt like it was on fire in direct sunlight, and I broke out in a severe rash" which symptom started in Vietnam; f. His testimony at the Board hearing that, if he drove with short sleeves after service, his arms would begin to blister within five minutes and "last anywhere from a couple of weeks to maybe a month sometimes." g. His wife's statement that she noticed an "awful rash on his legs" shortly after he returned from Vietnam; h. A December 2018 VA treatment record noting a "[h]istory of melanoma of the skin since return from Vietnam"; i. A February 2016 VA treatment record documenting complaints of "pruritis rash that comes and goes since 1968"; j. A February 2016 VA examination (skin diseases) that noted the Veteran's report of onset of his skin conditions in 1968. In considering and addressing the above evidence, it would be helpful (1) if the examiner stated any medical evidence or principles that support the Veteran's reports, (2) if the examiner identified whether his opinion is based on finding the evidence credible or not credible; and (3) if possible, whether finding the reports credible or not credible would change the examiner's final opinion. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Kerry Hubers 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.