Citation Nr: 21012187 Decision Date: 03/03/21 Archive Date: 03/03/21 DOCKET NO. 14-40 911A DATE: March 3, 2021 ORDER A clothing allowance due to Thera-Gesic and Hydrocerin creams for the benefit year 2014 is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to a clothing allowance due to a left foot orthotic for the benefit year 2014 is remanded. Entitlement to a clothing allowance due to a knee brace for the benefit year 2014 is remanded. FINDING OF FACT There is no evidence of a skin condition due to a service-connected disability during the benefit year 2014. See VA Treatment Records (VATRs) dated April 2014, June 2014. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The criteria for a clothing allowance due to Thera-Gesic and Hydrocerin creams for the benefit year 2014 are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1162, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.810. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from April 1968 to April 1970. This case comes before the Board on appeal from an August 2014 decision of a VA Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina. Payment of an annual clothing allowance is warranted for any veteran who, because of a service-connected disability, wears or uses a prosthetic or orthopedic appliance which VA determines tends to wear out or tear the veteran’s clothing, or who, because of a skin condition due to a service-connected disability uses a physician prescribed medication that causes irreparable damage to the Veteran’s outer garments. 38 U.S.C. § 1162; 38 C.F.R. § 3.810. The Veteran is seeking a clothing allowance for the benefit year 2014 for damage done to his clothing by Thera-Gesic and Hydrocerin creams. See May 2014 Clothing Allowance Application. During the benefit year 2014, the Veteran was service connected only for “incomplete fracture of the left metatarsal head.” The Veteran’s May 2014 application states that the creams are required for “foot inflammation” and “foot dry skin.” The Veteran’s medical records reflect prescriptions of Hydrocerin for “dry skin” and Thera-Gesic for “pain” during 2014. See June 2014 VATR. The record also indicates that the Veteran experienced dry skin of the bilateral feet during this time. See April 2014 VATR. However, there is no evidence that the Veteran’s service-connected left foot condition was the cause of his bilateral dry skin or of any other skin condition. Indeed, the fact that in 2014 the Veteran’s dry skin affected both feet suggests that his left foot disability was not responsible for it. Therefore, the Board finds that there is no evidence of a skin condition due to a service-connected disability during the benefit year 2014. Accordingly, a clothing allowance due to Thera-Gesic and Hydrocerin creams for the benefit year 2014 is not warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND A Board remand confers on the Veteran the right to compliance with the remand orders and imposes on VA a concomitant duty to ensure such compliance. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The issues of entitlement to a clothing allowance due to a left foot orthotic and a knee brace for the benefit year 2014 were previously remanded by the Board in May 2016 to obtain the Veteran’s complete VA treatment records for the year 2014, as well as a VA examination and opinion. However, no such examination and opinion have been obtained. Therefore, another remand is required to ensure compliance with the Board’s prior remand directives. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records dated from January 2014 to December 2014 and associate them with the claims file. 2. After completing the development outlined in Item 1., schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine whether any appliance, including a knee brace and/or crutches, used by the Veteran in 2014 due to his service-connected fracture of the left metatarsal head and/or left knee arthritis tended to result in wear or tear of his clothing. The examiner must provide a fully articulated medical rationale for the opinion, citing to peer-reviewed medical literature referenced in formulating it, if any. If the examiner finds that an opinion cannot be provided, this conclusion should also be clearly explained (e.g. lack of sufficient information/evidence in this case, or a lack of knowledge among the medical community at large, and not the insufficient knowledge of the individual examiner). S.C. KREMBS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board P. Timmerman, 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.