Citation Nr: 21007874 Decision Date: 02/11/21 Archive Date: 02/11/21 DOCKET NO. 17-33 016 DATE: February 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1971 to October 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In September 2019, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) issued a decision that, in pertinent part, denied entitlement to service connection for a skin disability. The Veteran appealed the denial to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). In an August 2020 Order, pursuant to a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) filed by the parties, the Court vacated and remanded the September 2019 decision for compliance with the instructions in the JMPR. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability is remanded. The Veteran contends that his skin disability is related to service. The parties to the JMPR noted that although an April 2015 VA examiner provided an opinion regarding the epidermal cyst diagnosis, the Veteran was later diagnosed with other skin conditions during the appeal period. Specifically, a February 2016 treatment note indicates a diagnosis of potential basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and keratosis. In March 2016, cherry angioma and suspected folliculitis, and seborrheic keratosis and cherry angiomas is indicated in December 2016. In light of the JMPR, a new examination and opinion should be obtained. Additionally, the parties concluded that the Board failed to address whether the Veteran’s skin disability is related to herbicide agent exposure. The Board notes that the September 2019 remand concerning service connection for diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease directed development regarding herbicide exposure, and such matters have not yet returned to the Board. If herbicide exposure is ultimately conceded by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction following the development ordered in the September 2019 remand, an opinion as to whether his skin condition is related to any such exposure should also be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide the names and addresses of all medical care providers who have recently treated him for his skin disability. After securing any necessary releases, request any relevant records identified. In addition, obtain updated VA treatment records. If any requested records are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified of such. 2. After records development is completed, the Veteran should be afforded a VA skin examination to determine the nature of any skin and to obtain an opinion as to whether such is possibly related to service. The claims file should be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. All necessary tests should be conducted, and the results reported. Following review of the claims file and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should provide an opinion with respect to each diagnosed skin disability found on examination, as well as potential basal cell carcinoma, keratosis, cherry angiomas, suspected folliculitis, and seborrheic keratosis noted in treatment records, provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that such conditions are a maturation of the rash during service or are otherwise related to service. A complete rationale should be provided for all opinions and conclusions expressed. 3. Following re-adjudication of the claims for service connection for ischemic heart disease and diabetes mellitus as a result of the September 2019 remand, if herbicide exposure is conceded, obtain a medical opinion addressing whether any of the Veteran’s diagnosed skin conditions are as likely as not related to herbicide exposure. 4. If the claim remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Asare, 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.