Citation Nr: 21011599 Decision Date: 03/02/21 Archive Date: 03/02/21 DOCKET NO. 14-26 677 DATE: March 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to restoration of a 60 percent disability rating for hidradenitis suppurativa is remanded. Entitlement to restoration of a 20 percent disability rating for peripheral vascular disease in the left leg is remanded. Entitlement to restoration of a 20 percent disability rating for peripheral vascular disease in the right leg is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating for hidradenitis suppurativa is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating for peripheral vascular disease in the right leg is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating for peripheral vascular disease in the left leg is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded.   REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1969 to July 1973. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a February 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Roanoke, Virginia. In November 2018, these matters were last before the Board, at which time they were remanded. 1. Entitlement to restoration of a 60 percent disability rating for hidradenitis suppurativa is remanded. 2. Entitlement to restoration of a 20 percent disability rating for peripheral vascular disease in the left leg is remanded. 3. Entitlement to restoration of a 20 percent disability rating for peripheral vascular disease in the right leg is remanded. 4. Entitlement to an increased rating for hidradenitis suppurativa is remanded. 5. Entitlement to an increased rating for peripheral vascular disease in the right leg is remanded. 6. Entitlement to an increased rating for peripheral vascular disease in the left leg is remanded. 7. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. When this matter was last before the Board, the Board requested clarification from the Veteran’s treating physician, Dr. J.W., M.D., a VA physician, in the form of an addendum medical report. In October 2019, rather than request the opinion directly from the physician directly, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) sent a letter to the Veteran putting the burden on the Veteran to obtain this addendum clarification opinion. The opinion addressed the skin and peripheral vascular disease issues on appeal here. The TDIU issue, moreover, is inextricably intertwined with the proper ratings of the other issues on appeal. The Board cannot find this action to be in substantial compliance with the prior remand directive since Dr. J.W. is a VA employee and, therefore, further remand of all the issues is warranted to ensure compliance with the prior remand directives and compliance with VA’s duty to assist. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (holding that a Board remand confers on the veteran or other claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request an addendum medical report from the Veteran’s treating VA physician, J.W., M.D., which expands on the October 2012 statement indicating that the Veteran continued experiencing at that time severe disability related to service-connected hidradenitis suppurativa and peripheral vascular disease. The physician should attempt to provide a retrospective report addressing the nature and severity of the Veteran’s disorders since May 2013, particularly regarding: (a). The skin area affected by hidradenitis suppurativa, and whether the Veteran used since then systemic therapy such as corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs. (b). Whether peripheral vascular disease causes claudication from walking, and whether peripheral pulses have been diminished, or whether the ankle/ brachial index has been 0.9 or less since May 2013. 2. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal, including the inextricably intertwined TDIU issue. Shereen M. Marcus Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Joseph R. Keselyak, 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.