Citation Nr: 21005723 Decision Date: 02/02/21 Archive Date: 02/02/21 DOCKET NO. 13-06 261A DATE: February 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with dyspepsia and gastritis, with Barrett’s esophagus status post duodenal ulcer, is remanded. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for athlete’s foot (tinea pedis) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from September 1983 to August 2009. The case was previously before the Board in May 2015 and September 2017. In January 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) issued a Memorandum Decision, which (1) set aside the portion of the September 2017 Board decision denying a compensable rating for athlete’s foot and remanded that matter for further development, if necessary, and readjudication; (2) modified the Board decision to reflect a grant of a 30 percent evaluation, but not higher for a gastroesophageal condition for the entire period on appeal [clarifying a typographical error found in the September 2017 Board decision]; and (3) set aside the portion of the Board decision denying a gastroesophageal evaluation in excess of 30 percent and remanding that matter for further development, if necessary, and readjudication. In July 2019, the Board remanded both claims for development consistent with the terms of the January 2019 Memorandum Decision. A December 2020 rating decision implemented the Board’s finding from its September 2017 decision that a 30 percent rating was warranted from September 1, 2009 for the Veteran’s GERD with gastroesophageal reflux disease with Barrett’s esophagus and gastritis pursuant to Diagnostic Code 7307. However, the Board finds that there was not substantial compliance with the other July 2019 remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (holding that a remand by the Court or the Board confers the right to compliance with remand orders). GERD In its July 2019 Remand, the Board requested that the Veteran undergo an updated examination, to specifically include a stomach conditions examination, as such more directly addressed the Veteran’s condition of gastritis, which the Veteran had previously stated was his predominant issue. In August 2020, the Veteran underwent an esophageal conditions examination, which encompasses GERD, but did not undergo a stomach conditions examination. Accordingly, the Veteran should undergo additional examination. Tinea Pedis The Veteran underwent an updated VA skin conditions examination in August 2020, at which time it was noted that the Veteran had not taken any medications for his tinea pedis in the prior 12 months. However, the Board had asked for the examiner to acknowledge the Veteran’s prior treatment with oral terbinafine or Lamisil tablets, and discuss whether such medication is like or similar to corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs, and determine with what frequency and for how long the topical and/or systemic therapies had been administered. Because the August 2020 VA examiner did not address prior treatment, the Board will remand for an addendum opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain VA treatment records dated from October 2018. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a stomach conditions examination with an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected GERD with dyspepsia and gastritis, with Barrett’s esophagus status post duodenal ulcer. If other VA examinations also appropriately encompass the Veteran’s disability, schedule the Veteran for those as well. If an examination cannot be scheduled at a location to which the Veteran can safely travel, or if health considerations make the scheduling of an in-person examination not possible, the AOJ should consider whether other virtual options, to include telehealth interviews or examinations are possible. The examiner(s) should provide a full description of the disability(ies) and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. 3. Obtain an addendum opinion from a qualified examiner regarding the Veteran’s tinea pedis. The clinician must review the entire claims file, with attention to the January 2019 Court Memorandum Decision and the July 2019 Board Remand. Then, the examiner should address the following: The examiner must ascertain whether the Veteran has required/been prescribed topical therapy and/or systemic therapy, such as corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs at any time during the appeal period, i.e., since May 2009. In particular, the examiner should acknowledge the Veteran’s prior treatment with oral terbinafine or Lamisil tablets, and discuss whether such medication is like or similar to corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs. The examiner is advised that the Veteran, in the course of the appeal, submitted copies of prescriptions for oral medications taken for his tinea pedis. The examiner must review those prescriptions. 4. Then, readjudicate the issues on appeal. V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Polly Johnson, 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.