Citation Nr: 21014261 Decision Date: 03/11/21 Archive Date: 03/11/21 DOCKET NO. 16-30 754 DATE: March 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for scar residuals, facial burns and shrapnel wounds, prior to December 7, 2018, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from March 1980 to May 1992. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from multiple rating decisions of a VA Regional Office (RO), most recently a November 2020 rating decision. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a November 2019 hearing before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board). In an October 2020 decision, the Board remanded this claim for additional development. The Board finds that the RO did not substantially comply with its remand directive requesting a retrospective opinion concerning the severity of the facial scar disability prior to December 7, 2018. Consequently, another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The Board also remanded the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of a total disability evaluation based upon individual unemployability (TDIU). In November 2020, the RO granted an earlier effective date of January 2012, the last month the Veteran worked, for TDIU. The Board considers this to be a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal. 1. Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for scar residuals, facial burns and shrapnel wounds, prior to December 7, 2018, is remanded. In October 2020, the Board remanded the claim for an increased rating for facial scars prior to December 7, 2018. The Veteran’s disability rating increased from zero percent (noncompensable) to 80 percent, but there were no facts suggesting that anything had occurred to cause the disability to drastically worsen in a short period of time. Additionally, the Veteran asserted that earlier VA examinations had not adequately examined his scars, as he maintained a beard. A retrospective VA medical opinion was requested to assess the accuracy and adequacy of the earlier VA examination reports, taking into account the Veteran’s statements, and, to the best of the examiner’s ability, to provide an accurate assessment of the severity of the facial scar disability prior to December 7, 2018. In a November 2020 VA medical opinion, the examiner stated that the Veteran’s three earlier VA examinations had been consistent with one another, the most recent VA examination was inconsistent with the other examinations, and there appeared to be a drastic worsening of the scar condition compared to the previous VA examinations. In addition to being very short, the opinion primarily restated the facts that were already known. It did not address the Veteran’s lay statements or whether the earlier VA examinations adequately assessed his facial scar disability. At best, the opinion suggested the Veteran’s scar disability drastically worsened over a short period of time, but it did not explain why that might have happened. Based on these facts, the Board finds the retrospective VA opinion does not substantially comply with its remand directives and is inadequate for adjudication purposes. Accordingly, this claim must be remanded again. This matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain a retrospective medical opinion from a medical professional with appropriate expertise assessing the severity and progression of the Veteran’s facial scar disability for the period prior to December 7, 2018. The examiner should address the Veteran’s lay statements and reports as well as the relevant medical evidence of record, including the Veteran’s prior VA examinations, and discuss, to the extent possible, the nature and severity of the disability throughout the period on appeal. The examiner is also asked to opine, to the best of their ability, as to the accuracy of the findings reported in the May 2007, September 2013, and December 2015 VA examinations. Finally, the examiner is asked to comment on the effect of the Veteran’s facial scar disability on his daily activities and occupational functioning, including his ability to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation. A complete rationale must be provided for all conclusions. If the examiner cannot address any questions posed by this remand without resorting to speculation, the examiner must clearly explain why speculation is required. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Hicks, 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.