Citation Nr: 21022712 Decision Date: 04/19/21 Archive Date: 04/19/21 DOCKET NO. 16-36 897 DATE: April 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for dyshidrosis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from November 1963 to November 1965. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. The issue on appeal was previously before the Board in July 2019. In pertinent part, the Board denied entitlement to an initial compensable rating for the Veteran’s service-connected dyshidrosis. The Veteran appealed the Board’s July 2019 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In November 2020, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) filed by the parties to the appeal (the Veteran, through his attorney, and representatives from VA General Counsel), thereby vacating the Board’s decision and remanding the matter for readjudication. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for dyshidrosis is remanded. In its July 2014 rating decision, the RO granted service connection and a 0 (zero) percent (noncompensable) rating for dyshidrosis, effective March 15, 2013. The condition has been rated pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7806, as dermatitis and eczema. In the November 2020 JMPR, the parties to the appeal agreed that the Board erred in failing to discuss whether the Veteran’s use of Clobetasol and/or other topical medications to treat his dyshidrosis constituted systemic therapy pursuant to Burton v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 286 (2018), which addresses considerations pertaining to the assignment of disability ratings for skin disabilities under the version of DC 7806 in effect for claims, such as the Veteran’s, that were pending prior to August 13, 2018. See also Johnson v. Shulkin, 862 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Warren v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 194 (2016). The Veteran was afforded VA examinations in connection with his claim in April 2014 and October 2018. The April 2014 VA examiner noted that the Veteran had been treated with an unknown steroid cream on a constant/near-constant basis in the past 12 months, and that he had also used an anti-fungal topical cream on a constant/near-constant basis in the past 12 months. The October 2018 VA examiner noted that the Veteran had been treated with the topical corticosteroid or immunosuppressive medication Clobetasol on a constant/near-constant basis in the past 12 months. Neither the April 2014 nor October 2018 VA examinations comply with the requirement of Burton. Specifically, neither examiner offered a clear opinion as to whether any topical medication the Veteran has used during the pendency of his claim operates by affecting the body as a whole such that it can properly be considered systemic therapy. Consequently, an addendum opinion is warranted. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007).   This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain copies of records pertaining to any VA treatment the Veteran has received since the time that such records were last procured, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The evidence obtained, if any, should be associated with the record. 2. Arrange to provide the record on appeal to the VA examiner who evaluated the Veteran in October 2018. The examiner should review the record. After reviewing the record, the examiner should state whether the Veteran’s treatment for dyshidrosis, including any topical medication he uses or has used since March 2013 (when he filed his claim for service connection), operates by affecting the body as a whole such that it can properly be considered systemic therapy. In so doing, the examiner should specifically consider the medication(s) used by the Veteran as noted in the reports of his April 2014 and October 2018 VA examinations. If the October 2018 examiner is no longer employed by VA or is otherwise unable to offer the requested opinion, arrange to obtain the opinion from another qualified VA clinician. The need for another examination and/or telephonic or video interview of the Veteran is left to the discretion of the examiner selected to provide the requested opinion. A complete rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the issue on appeal should be re-adjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Oldroyd, 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.