Citation Nr: 21029206 Decision Date: 05/12/21 Archive Date: 05/12/21 DOCKET NO. 12-05 100 DATE: May 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for left shoulder melanoma is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from March 1976 to April 1993. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2011 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2018, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge of the Board. A transcript of the hearing is in the record. In a June 2019 decision, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for left shoulder melanoma. In May 2020, the Veteran appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) where the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (Joint Motion). The Court's May 2020 Order vacated the June 2019 Board decision and remanded matter to the Board for consideration consistent with the terms of the joint motion. The Board remanded the matter in October 2020 and January 2021 for additional development. The case is now again before the Board for further appellate action. Entitlement to service connection for left shoulder melanoma is remanded. In January 2021, the Board remanded the Veteran's service connection claim for left shoulder melanoma as the Board had found that an addendum opinion was needed to reconcile conflicting statements made by the November 2020 VA examiner, who was the same examiner that provided the previous July 2016 VA medical opinion. The Board also directed the examiner to distinguish sun exposure during service versus sun exposure elsewhere in rendering the addendum medical opinion. At the Veteran's November 2018 Board hearing, when asked to provide the locations in which he was exposed to radiation from the sun during service, the Veteran stated, "I spent five tours in Okinawa, two years in the Philippines. I was at Camp Lejeune, Camp Pendleton in California, and I think that's about it." A September 1982 service personnel record reflects that the Veteran served at Subic Bay, Philippines from May 1981 to September 1982; Camp Pendleton, California from May 1979 to November 1979 and from September 1976 to February 1978; and Okinawa, Japan from February 1978 to March 1979. In January 2021, the Veteran was provided an addendum opinion. The examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's left shoulder melanoma is directly linked to the Veteran's time on active duty, to specifically include in-service sun exposure during Desert Storm and Desert Shield. The examiner's rationale included the following: "Derm report dated 08/2015 'history of high degree of lifetime sun exposure to involved areas without use of protective clothing or sunscreen.' is not in dispute. But the time in service does not represent a majority of lifetime sun exposure, therefore, a causal relationship cannot be supported." However, the examiner failed to follow the January 2021 Board's directive to distinguish sun exposure during service versus sun exposure elsewhere in the addendum opinion. Thus, remand is warranted to obtain an addendum opinion to distinguish sun exposure during service versus sun exposure before and after service in determining whether the Veteran's left shoulder melanoma is etiologically related to his active service. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). By this remand, the Board makes no determination, express or implied, concerning the credibility of any lay statements on file. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the claims file and a complete copy of this remand to an appropriate examiner other than the examiner who provided the January 2021 opinion to provide an addendum opinion. The examiner must independently review the electronic claims folder. The electronic claims file should be made accessible to the examiner along with any other information the medical professional deems pertinent. If the examiner determines that additional examination of the Veteran is necessary to provide a reliable opinion, such examination should be scheduled. 2. The examiner is to provide an addendum opinion on the following: Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's left shoulder melanoma is directly linked to the Veteran's active service, to specifically include in-service sun exposure during Desert Storm and Desert Shield? (a.) In rendering the opinion, the examiner should distinguish sun exposure during service versus sun exposure before and after service. (b.) The examiner is asked to consider the Veteran's contention that "he was constantly in the sun and experience sunburns in service." See Supplemental Brief received in May 2020. (c.) The examiner is also asked to consider VA medical opinion dated August 2015 citing dermatology note of March 2011 indicating the veteran had a "history of high degree of lifetime sun exposure to involved areas without use of protective clothing or sunscreen." (d.) If an opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain why it would be speculative to respond. 3. After the development described above, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If any determination remains unfavorable to the Veteran, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). (Continued on the next page) This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Moore, 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.