Citation Nr: 21011927 Decision Date: 03/03/21 Archive Date: 03/03/21 DOCKET NO. 12-00 374 DATE: March 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 2003 to January 2006. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on an appeal from a November 2011 rating decision issued by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in January 2018. The transcript is of record. This claim for service connection was last remanded by the June 2020 for further development to include an addendum medical opinion as to the etiology of the Veteran’s skin condition. The claim been returned to the Board for appellate review. A remand by the Board confers upon the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders. Where the remand orders of the Board were not complied with, the Board itself errs in failing to ensure compliance. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). This obligation is mandatory, not discretionary. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder is remanded. Regrettably, additional development is necessary before the Veteran’s claim can be finally adjudicated. In the June 2020 remand, the Board requested a medical opinion to address the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s skin condition. In November 2020, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination and an etiological opinion was provided in compliance with the Board’s June 2020 remand directives. However, without providing any medical basis to doubt the Veteran’s persistent reports of skin irritation during and after service, the examiner reasoned that there was no evidence in the records that a skin condition was incurred in service. The examiner reasoned that there was no diagnosis made in service or during the presumptive period. The examiner’s opinion lacks sufficient rationale as it is based on an inaccurate factual basis and fails to address the competent lay evidence of record. The Board notes that the Veteran was diagnosed with dermatitis during service in November 2005. Moreover, the Veteran was treated for various rashes in July 2005 and September 2005. Finally, in the June 2020 remand, the Board also noted that the record raised a question of preexistence. This inquiry was not adequately addressed by the November 2020 examiner. Consequently, further remand is required for compliance with the June 2020 remand directives. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate with the claims file any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. After obtaining the necessary authorization from the Veteran, obtain and associate with the claims file any identified relevant private medical records. All attempts to secure these records must be documented in the record. If any requested records are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified of such in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (e). 3. Obtain an addendum opinion from the November 2020 VA examiner or, if the examiner is unavailable, from an appropriate clinician regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s skin condition. The claims file should be made available to the VA examiner, and the file should be reviewed. The examiner should state whether it is as least as likely as not (i.e. 50 percent or greater probability) that the skin disorders began in or are related to her military service. The opinion must address the Veteran’s credible statements that she has experienced rashes and skin irritation since service. Alternatively, if it is determined that a current skin disorder clearly and unmistakably predated entry into active duty service, the examiner must opine as to whether the disorder clearly and unmistakably was NOT aggravated beyond its normal course of progression by any aspect of active duty service. Additionally, whatever the opinion, the examiner should address the Veteran’s in-service treatment for skin irritation in July 2005 and September 2005 as well as the diagnosis of dermatitis in November 2005 during service. A complete rationale should accompany any opinion. The Veteran is competent to attest to matters of which she has first-hand knowledge, including observable symptoms, such as pain. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt any statements or histories provided by the Veteran regarding any of her claimed conditions, the examiner should state this and provide a fully reasoned explanation. Otherwise, the Veteran’s statements should be considered competent and credible. 4. After completing any indicated additional development, the Veteran’s claims should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Sherman 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.