Citation Nr: 21073133 Decision Date: 12/07/21 Archive Date: 12/07/21 DOCKET NO. 18-02 454 DATE: December 7, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for service-connected eczema is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1980 to August 1984 and August 1984 to November 2003.This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned in an August 2021 Board hearing. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The Board notes that in January 2020, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim related to his service-connected eczema. However, as the as the matter was already properly before the Board the RO declined to process the supplemental claim. As this matter is being remanded, should the Veteran's claim not be granted fully, he may opt-in to the Appeals Modernization Act system of review upon any issuance of a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). 1. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for eczema is remanded. The Veteran contends that his eczema is more severe than it is currently rated. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in January 2016. During the examination, the Veteran reported lesions on the Veteran's elbows and across his back. The examiner noted there were no current lesions. In August 2021, the Veteran testified that his skin disability would flare up and last for 4 to 6 months. The Veteran stated he would get treatment for his skin and it would clear up, only to flare-up again. In Ardison v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 405 (1994), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that VA was obligated to evaluate tinea pedis, a skin condition, while in an "active stage" of the disease in order to fulfill the duty to assist. In this case, since the Veteran has reported recurring symptoms, an attempt to evaluate the Veteran during a period of flare-ups should be made. Therefore, the Board finds a remand is required for another VA examination. Further, if the Veteran's flare-up periods are short in duration, the examiner should still attempt to provide an assessment of the percent of the entire body areas affected and percent of exposed body areas affected by the Veteran's skin condition, based upon the Veteran's reports. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for skin disease to ascertain the current severity of the Veteran's skin condition (service connected as eczema). All necessary tests should be conducted. The AOJ should ensure that the examiner has access to the Veteran's claims file, including a copy of this remand. (a.) An attempt to evaluate the Veteran during an active phase of the disease should be undertaken. If the Veteran's flare-up periods are short in duration, the examiner should still attempt to provide an assessment of the percent of the entire body areas affected and percent of exposed body areas affected by the Veteran's skin disability, based upon the Veteran's reports. (b.) If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement, or an opinion regarding flare-ups, symptoms, or functional impairment without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). (c.) The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether the medication the Veteran takes for his skin disability during a flare-up are topical treatments that act as systemic therapy by affecting the body as whole. (d.) The examiner should provide a complete rationale for all opinions expressed and conclusions reached. S. L. Kennedy Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Robert Batten 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.