Citation Nr: 21009898 Decision Date: 02/23/21 Archive Date: 02/23/21 DOCKET NO. 17-40 820 DATE: February 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for mycosis fungoides t-cell lymphoma, to include the propriety of the reduction in the rating from 100 percent to noncompensable, effective June 1, 2016, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1969 to December 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from November 2015 and March 2016 rating decisions. In September 2019, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Central Office hearing in Washington, DC. A copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the electronic claims file. In November 2019, the Board remanded this matter for additional development. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for mycosis fungoides t-cell lymphoma, to include the propriety of the reduction in the rating from 100 percent to noncompensable, effective June 1, 2016, is remanded. A Compensation and Pension Exam Inquiry simply showed that the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) was unable to contact the Veteran in February 2020 to schedule the VA skin diseases examination requested in the November 2019 Board Remand. There were no notice letters associated with the electronic claims file informing the Veteran of the location, date, and time of the examination. Evidence of record showed that the Veteran’s mailing address has not changed in years and that he had a history of responding to VA correspondence in a routine and timely manner. Furthermore, in June 2020, the Veteran reported that he had not received any notice of the date and time of the VA examination. In light of the absence of evidence showing the Veteran received proper notice of the scheduled VA skin diseases examination, the Board finds that a remand is required in order to reschedule the VA examination and ensure that the Veteran is provided adequate notice. See Kyhn v. Shinseki, 716 F.3d 572 (Fed. Cir. 2013). All identified private treatment records pertaining to the Veteran’s service-connected mycosis fungoides t-cell lymphoma should also be obtained and associated with the record. In addition, updated VA treatment records dated since June 2020 from Albuquerque VAMC should be obtained and associated with the electronic claims file. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records from Albuquerque VAMC pertaining to the Veteran’s service-connected mycosis fungoides t-cell lymphoma residuals for the time period from June 2020 to the present and associate them with the record. 2. Contact the Veteran and afford him the opportunity to identify or submit any additional pertinent evidence in support of his claim, to include any additional private treatment records for radiation therapy in 2019 and additional treatment in 2020 at Christus St. Vincent Regional Cancer Center as well as X-Ray Associates of New Mexico, P.C. With any needed assistance from the Veteran, obtain any identified private treatment records reflecting treatment for his service-connected mycosis fungoides t-cell lymphoma residuals. 3. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of his service-connected mycosis fungoides t-cell lymphoma residuals. The electronic claims file must be made available to the examiner for review and the examiner must note that the claims file was reviewed. The examiner must provide an accurate and fully descriptive assessment of the Veteran’s mycosis fungoides t-cell lymphoma residuals, to include whether the skin malignancy has required therapy that is comparable to that used for systemic malignancies (i.e., systemic chemotherapy, X-ray therapy more extensive than to the skin, or surgery more extensive than wide local excision). The examiner should specifically discuss if electron-beam radiation therapy received by the Veteran in July and August 2019 constitutes therapy that is comparable to that used for systemic malignancies. Rationale for all requested opinions shall be provided. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question(s). The Veteran is hereby advised that failure to report for any scheduled VA examination without good cause shown may have adverse effects on his claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (2020). If he does not attend the scheduled examination, the AOJ should document in the electronic claims file all attempts to schedule the Veteran for the examination, to include a copy of the notice letter sent to his last known address and whether any notice was returned as undeliverable. 4. After completing the above actions and any other necessary development, the claim on appeal must be readjudicated, taking into consideration all relevant evidence associated with the evidence of record since the June 2020 SSOC. If the benefit on appeal remains denied, a SSOC must be provided to the Veteran and his representative. After the Veteran has had an adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. D. Deane, 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.