Citation Nr: 21075099 Decision Date: 12/17/21 Archive Date: 12/17/21 DOCKET NO. 18-10 601 DATE: December 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1967 to November 1969, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. He testified before the undersigned in October 2019; a transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. This matter was most recently remanded in January 2020. Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the prior remand directives and another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The Veteran's representative argued that the March 2020 VA opinion obtained on remand is inadequate; the Board agrees. See November 2021 written brief. In the prior remand, the examiner was directed to discuss the January 2017, October 2019, and November 2019 medical opinions that related the Veteran's skin conditions to his herbicide exposure. Instead, the March 2020 examiner provided a negative opinion based solely on the fact that the diagnosed conditions were not presumptive conditions for herbicide exposure. The examiner did not support his rationale nor comment on the positive opinions for the Veteran's skin conditions. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward copies of all pertinent records to an appropriate VA examiner to obtain a medical opinion for the Veteran's skin condition claim. If the examiner determines that an opinion cannot be provided without an examination, one should be scheduled. The examiner is asked to answer the following (a) Identify all currently diagnosed skin conditions and specify the affected areas. (b) For each currently diagnosed skin condition, is it at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including the Veteran's conceded exposure to herbicide agents? The examiner must consider and address (i) dermatology reports of prurigo nodules; (ii) the January 2017 private letter noting the Veteran's multiple soft-tissue lesions; (iii)the Veteran's reports of sebaceous cysts and the affected areas; and (iv) the October 2019 and November 2019 VA treatment records relating the Veteran's diagnosed sebaceous cysts to Agent Orange exposure. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resort to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge; the examiner's own expertise, or; whether additional facts are required and note what, if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be made. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Jarman, 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.