Citation Nr: 21023787 Decision Date: 04/21/21 Archive Date: 04/21/21 DOCKET NO. 12-07 745 DATE: April 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating greater than 10 percent for right hip spondyloarthropathy is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating greater than 10 percent for left hip spondyloarthropathy is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating greater than 10 percent for right knee chondromalacia with arthritis is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating greater than 10 percent for left knee spondyloarthropathy is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating greater than 20 percent for right shoulder spondyloarthropathy is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating greater than 20 percent for lumbar spine degenerative arthritis is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating greater than 10 percent for acne folliculitis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1969 to February 1971 and May 1971 to October 1985. He appeals a September 2010 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denying entitlement to a compensable rating for right shoulder spondyloarthropathy, a rating greater than 20 percent for lumbar spine degenerative arthritis, and ratings greater than 10 percent for each left and right hip spondyloarthropathy, left and right knee conditions, and acne folliculitis. During the appeal period, the AOJ increased the Veteran’s right shoulder condition to 20 percent. See January 2018 rating decision. A Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) hearing was held in August 2012 before a Veterans Law Judge who is no longer employed by the Board, and a transcript is of record. In a February 2020 letter, the Veteran declined a second hearing after being properly informed of his options. Most recently, in March 2020, the Board remanded the claims for further development. The Board apologizes for the additional delay, but another remand is necessary. The March 2020 Board Remand instructed the AOJ to obtain examinations for each issue mentioned above. The very same month, the AOJ scheduled the Veteran’s examinations, contacting the Veteran and mailing the examination appointment letter only two days before his scheduled March 2020 appointment. The Veteran did not attend his examinations. The examination scheduler stated it was “uncertain if [the] Veteran was informed of the examination date with sufficient lead time to be able to attend as the letter was sent two days prior to examination date.” See April 2020 VA Form 21-0820. The AOJ contacted the Veteran twice to reschedule and the Veteran subsequently attended an unrelated VA examination in August 2020. As VA scheduling services itself was “uncertain” the Veteran was informed of the examination date in time, and in light of the evidence above, the Board finds good cause for the Veteran’s absence and remands to attempt the development again. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. Acne folliculitis The March 2020 Board decision inexplicably issued an order denying an increased rating greater than 10 percent for pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) while simultaneously remanding the same issue for additional development. The Board notes that despite the March 2020 Order, there are no reasons or bases discussed within the decision itself on this increased rating claim; therefore, the order appears to have been in error. Given this procedural confusion and viewed in the light most favorable to the Veteran, the Board finds this issue still on appeal as the March 2020 Board decision provided remand instructions and the AOJ scheduled a VA examination in compliance with these instructions, despite not issuing a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). Thus, a remand is required to allow the AOJ to further develop the claim in accordance with the prior remand instructions and produce an SSOC. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding and updated relevant VA and/or private treatment records and associate the same with the claims file. 2. After the development of #1 above is complete, schedule the Veteran for examinations to determine the nature and severity for each of the following service-connected disabilities (a) right and left hip spondyloarthropathy, (b) right and left knee conditions, (c) right shoulder spondyloarthropathy, and (d) lumbar spine degenerative arthritis. For each service-connected condition, the examiner must: Test the Veteran’s pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, precipitating and alleviating factors, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups and with repetitive use over time. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due solely to each condition and discuss the effect on any occupational functioning. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement or an opinion regarding flare-ups, symptoms, or functional impairment without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). The examiner should consider that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and such reports must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinions. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports of symptomatology, a reason for doing so should also be provided. 3. After the development of #1 above is complete, schedule the Veteran for a skin examination to determine the severity of his service-connected acne dermatitis, to include pseudofolliculitis barbae. The examiner should determine whether the Veteran’s treatment with 12 percent ammonium lactate and Dermacerin constitutes constant or near-constant systemic therapy or intermittent systemic therapy, that is like or similar to corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs. The examiner is directed to January 2020 VA treatment records noting the Veteran is treated with “miconazole powder, ammonium lactate, urea lotion, hydrophilic ointment, tretinoin cream, fluocinonide ointment, and hydroquinone cream.” The examiner should consider the Veteran competent to report his skin symptoms and such reports must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinions. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports of symptomatology, a reason for doing so should also be provided. 4. After the above has been completed to the extent possible, readjudicate the claim. If any benefit sought remains denied, provide the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), and return the case to the Board. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Bona, 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.