Citation Nr: 21075393 Decision Date: 12/20/21 Archive Date: 12/20/21 DOCKET NO. 12-19 428 DATE: December 20, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1965 to October 1973. He died in September 2016. The Appellant is his surviving spouse and she has been properly substituted for the claim on appeal. The Veteran appeared at a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in October 2014. The Board then remanded this appeal in December 2014 and November 2019. In September 2019 and again in January 2021, the appellant was notified that the VLJ who held the October 2014 hearing was no longer at the Board and that she could request a hearing before a new VLJ. To date, she has not responded; thus, as noted in the letter, it is assumed that she does not want another hearing. Notably, the appellant has requested a hearing regarding the issue of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder; the issue of service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder is in a separate appeal stream and will be the subject of another Board decision. See VA Form 9 (December 2020). This case has been before the Board multiple times, most recently in August 2021 when it was remanded for additional development. There has not been substantial compliance with the remand directives and the claim must be remanded again. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder is remanded. In August 2021, the Board remanded the appeal to obtain a VA medical opinion regarding the claim of service connection for a skin disorder. Pursuant to the August 2021 Board remand, VA medical opinions were obtained in September 2021. For the following reasons, the September 2021 VA advisory and addendum opinions obtained in accordance with the prior Board remand are inadequate. The Appellant seeks service connection for a skin disorder and the record reflects that the Veteran had a scar and tinea pedis which preexisted his active-duty service. In the August 2021 remand, the Board also identified that prior to his death the Veteran made lay statements which suggested he may have had a skin condition other than tinea pedis. The Board specifically directed the examiner to consider these lay statements and to determine if his statements were consistent with a diagnosis in addition to tinea pedis, and if so, if such diagnosed skin condition was related to service. However, the September 2021 VA examiner only addressed the Veteran's skin treatment during service and did not address the Veteran's post-service lay statements or whether he had a skin condition other than tinea pedis during the period on appeal. Accordingly, a remand is necessary to obtain a VA medical opinion. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from a VA examiner other than the examiner who provided the September 2021 VA advisory opinion and September 2021 VA addendum opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's skin disorders. Copies of all pertinent records, including this remand, must be made available to the examiner for review. Based on the review of the record, the examiner should answer the following: (a.) Identify all diagnosed skin conditions from April 2010 until the Veteran's death in September 2016, to include an appendectomy scar and tinea pedis. The examiner should consider the Veteran's lay testimony of having skin issues, including irritation, during and since service, and specifically answer whether such statements are consistent with a diagnosis of a skin condition other than tinea pedis. (b.) For the Veteran's appendectomy scar and tinea pedis, does the evidence clearly and unmistakably show (i.e., it is undebatable) that the appendectomy scar and tinea pedis was not aggravated his active service or that any increase in disability was due to the natural progression of the condition? Aggravation is defined as a chronic worsening of the underlying condition versus a temporary flare-up of symptoms beyond its natural progression. The examiner must identify such evidence with specificity. (c.) For each diagnosed skin disorder, other than appendectomy scar and tinea pedis, is it at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include as due to his conceded exposure to herbicides? Why or why not? The examiner must consider and discuss as necessary the Veteran's in-service treatment for tinea pedis in June 1965, December 1965, February 1967, and August 1968; in-service treatment for a heat rash in his groin area in September 1967; and the Veteran's lay statements of skin issues during service and that he had continued symptomatology since service. The examiner must explain the rationale for all opinions in detail, citing to supporting clinical data and/or medical literature, as appropriate. If an opinion cannot be provided, the examiner should indicate why. Ashley Castillo Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Eric Struening 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.