Citation Nr: 21072724
Decision Date: 12/06/21	Archive Date: 12/06/21

DOCKET NO. 10-17 774
DATE: December 6, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder, including allergic dermatitis, hives, mycotic nail, onychomycosis, allergic reactions, and lipoma is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for migraine headaches is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from January 1982 to January 1985.  In January 2017, the Veteran testified at a travel board hearing before the undersigned.  

In July 2020, the Board denied the issues of service connection for a skin disorder and service connection for migraine headaches, which the Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court).  In July 2021, the Court issued an order that vacated the Board decision and remanded the claim for compliance with a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR). 

1. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder, including allergic dermatitis, hives, mycotic nail, onychomycosis, allergic reactions, and lipoma is remanded.

The Veteran has reported that her mycotic nail and onychomycosis conditions had onset in service and the symptomatology has continued since service.  These contentions were reported to both the July 2017 and September 2018 VA examiners, however, according to the JMR, neither examiner adequately addressed or considered the Veteran's lay statements when offering the opinions as to etiology.  The JMR determined that the Board must remand for a new examination with an opinion that takes into account the Veteran's lays statements regarding onset of a skin condition in service and ongoing chronicity of skin symptoms since service, to include symptoms of mycotic nail and onychomycosis conditions.

2. Entitlement to service connection for migraine headaches is remanded.

The Veteran has reported that her migraine headaches had onset in service and the symptomatology has continued since service.  These contentions were reported to both the July 2017 and September 2018 VA examiners, however, according to the JMR, neither examiner adequately addressed or considered the Veteran's lay statements when offering the opinions as to etiology.  The JMR determined that the Board must remand for a new examination with an opinion that takes into account the Veteran's lays statements.

By this remand, and to the extent consistent with the JMR, the Board makes no determination, explicit or implied, at this time concerning the credibility of any lay statements. 

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Send the claims file to the VA examiner who offered the September 2018 opinion, or to another qualified examiner, to address the etiology of the Veteran's skin disorder, for an opinion on whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that a skin condition had onset in or is otherwise related to active military service.  The opinion must discuss whether the disability picture presented is consistent with the Veteran's reports (lay observations) of onset in service and continuity of complaints since service.  The Veteran's statements concerning the onset and continuity of symptoms must be specifically addressed by the examiner.

2. Obtain an addendum medical opinion from the September 2018 VA examiner, if available, or from another qualified examiner for an opinion on whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that migraine headaches had onset in or is otherwise related to active military service.  The opinion must discuss whether the disability picture presented is consistent with the Veteran's reports (lay observations) of onset in service and continuity of complaints since service.  The Veteran's statements concerning the onset and continuity of symptoms must be specifically addressed by the examiner.

 

 

Thomas H. O'Shay

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	K. Mitchell, 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.