Citation Nr: 21009245 Decision Date: 02/22/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 15-43 883 DATE: February 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition, claimed as being on the groin, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1966 to October 1968. This matter is on appeal from a March 2014 decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In September 2018, a videoconference hearing was held before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing is in the record. The case was previously before the Board in May 2019 and October 2020 when it was remanded for further development. Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition is remanded. The Veteran contends that his skin condition was caused by in-service exposure to herbicide agents. As discussed above, this matter was remanded to obtain an addendum medical opinion, and VA obtained an additional opinion in November 2020. However, in a January 2021 appellate brief, the Veteran’s representative raised the matter of competency, stated that the opinion was rendered by an Internal Medicine physician and not a dermatologist, and requested the examiner’s curriculum vitae (CV) and other information about his qualifications. Once a request is made for information as to the competency of an examiner, an appellant has the right, absent unusual circumstances, to the CV and other information about qualifications of a medical examiner. Francway v. Wilkie, 940 F.3d 1304, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2019). As this matter has now been raised by the Veteran’s representative, the RO must undertake reasonable efforts to obtain information relating to the competency of the examiner who provided the November 2020 opinion. The Board further finds that an addendum opinion is necessary. Specifically, the November 2020 reviewing clinician indicated that he could not provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation. The rationale described the Veteran and his spouse’s statements regarding onset of symptoms while the Veteran was still in service and listed multiple possible conditions and then indicated that the nature of the rash was unknown along with the specific diagnosis of the rash. However, the examiner did not consider the Veteran’s statements regarding medication he was given at that time and did not address whether the symptoms described could have reflected the onset of the current skin condition diagnoses. The record also reflects the Veteran receives VA treatment; thus, updated VA treatment records should be associated with the claims file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from October 2020 to the present. 2. Undertake all reasonable efforts to obtain the curriculum vitae (CV) and other information about the qualifications of the examiner who provided the November 2020 VA opinion. Upon receipt of these records, associate them with the record and provide the Veteran and the representative with a copy thereof, and afford them an opportunity to respond. If the requested records cannot be obtained, the Veteran and the representative should be notified and the reasons for such should be documented in the record. 3. Obtain an addendum opinion from a qualified clinician regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s skin condition. A physical examination (or a telehealth interview, if an in-person examination is not feasible) should only be scheduled if the examiner determines that one is necessary to provide the requested opinion. The reviewing clinician should be requested to provide an opinion (based on a review of the record) to answer the following: Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s skin condition, diagnosed as lichen sclerosus and eczema, was incurred in service or is otherwise related to service, to include his presumed exposure to herbicide agents therein? The clinician is asked to provide a rationale which addresses the Veteran’s competent lay reports of itching during service that continued after separation including medications he was given for the condition, as noted in an April 2014 statement, and his spouse’s December 2015 statement reflecting her competent observations of his skin condition since his return from service, and whether the symptoms described would be consistent with the currently diagnosed skin conditions. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. If the clinician cannot provide a requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the clinician must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. The clinician must indicate whether there was any further need for information or testing necessary to make a determination. Additionally, the clinician must indicate whether any opinion could not be rendered due to limitations of knowledge in the medical community at large and not those of the particular examiner. M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. H. White, 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.