Citation Nr: 21030669 Decision Date: 05/19/21 Archive Date: 05/19/21 DOCKET NO. 17-66 710 DATE: May 19, 2021 ORDER The request to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for eczema is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for eczema is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a June 2015 rating decision, the Veteran was denied service connection for eczema on the basis that evidence did not reflect an in-service event or that his disability was related to service. The Veteran was notified of that decision in July 2015. He did not appeal the decision. New evidence, such as VA treatment records, was received within one year of the decision, but is not considered material because it did not relate to an in-service event or a relation to service. Therefore, the decision is final. 2. In March 2021, the Veteran submitted a medical article discussing a relation between skin disabilities and military service. This evidence is relevant and probative, and it helps cure a prior evidentiary defect; namely, the lack of a relation to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The June 2015 rating decision, which denied service connection for eczema, is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 19.52 (2020). 2. The evidence received since the June 2015 rating decision, which denied service connection for eczema, is new and material, and the claim is reopened. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2020). REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1996 to September 2000. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2016 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Entitlement to service connection for eczema was denied by the Board in a June 2019 decision. The Veteran appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), which vacated the decision pursuant to a July 2020 Joint Motion for Remand. The Board remanded the issue in November 2020; it is once again before the Board and has been reassigned to the undersigned. The Board notes that the previous Board decision and remands did not adjudicate the issue of reopening the original claim of service connection for eczema. Although the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) reopened the Veteran's claim, the question of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen such claim must be addressed in the first instance by the Board because the issue goes to the Board's jurisdiction to reach the underlying claim and adjudicate it on a de novo basis. See Jackson v. Principi, 265 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1996). If the Board finds that no such evidence has been offered, that is where the analysis must end; hence, what the AOJ may have determined in this regard is irrelevant. Barnett, 83 F.3d at 1383. For the reasons discussed above, the request to reopen the claim of service connection for eczema is granted. Entitlement to service connection for eczema. The Veteran asserts that he had a rash on his feet during service and that it spread to his legs, armpits and back. See March 2015 VA examination. Service treatment records (STRs) corroborate the rash on his feet, but it was diagnosed as tinea pedis at the time and the Veteran was given a fungal cream. The rash then returned. See January 2000 STRs. In March 2015, the Veteran denied symptoms on his feet. See March 2015 VA examination. In February 2021, a VA examiner diagnosed eczema but also found that there were no symptoms on his feet. See February 2021 VA examination. The Veteran's representative asserts that the Veteran reported experiencing dry, itchy skin while on deployment and the condition did not worsen sufficiently to see a doctor until after service. See March 2021 correspondence. The Board cannot locate such evidence from the Veteran and the record appears to reflect that the Veteran has only reported that he had a foot rash in service. See, e.g., February 2021 VA examination. Nonetheless, the representative asserted that the diagnosis of tinea pedis during service was an incorrect diagnosis. See January 2018 correspondence. The Veteran asserts that a June 2016 skin Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) indicated the Veteran was first diagnosed with eczema in July 2000. See id. To the extent that the DBQ is an opinion regarding a relation to service, the opinion is inadequate because there is no rationale provided. A February 2021 VA examiner found that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's eczema was related to service because eczema was a new condition that developed after service and is unrelated to tinea pedis; the examiner explained the tenia pedis is a fungal infection and eczema has, to some extent, an autoimmune pathophysiological mechanism to it. This opinion is inadequate because it did not address whether the in-service diagnosis of tinea pedis could be a misdiagnosis. It also remains unclear whether the Veteran had skin symptoms somewhere other than his feet during service. As a result, remand for a new examination is necessary. In March 2021, the Veteran submitted articles purporting to say that eczema is one of the most common skin conditions found among service members. On remand, the examiner should discuss the articles to the extent applicable. During the March 2015 VA examination, the Veteran was noted to see a private doctor for his skin disability. On remand, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should seek any relevant private treatment records. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should obtain copies of VA treatment records from February 2021 to the present. 2. The AOJ should obtain, if possible, records of relevant private evaluations and treatment the Veteran has received for his skin disability. The Veteran must assist in the matter by identifying his private healthcare providers and by submitting releases for VA to obtain any private records identified. 3. After the development in the first two directives is completed, the AOJ should arrange for a VA examination of the Veteran to determine the nature and likely cause of the Veteran's eczema. The examiner should review the claim file (including this remand) and note such review was conducted. Based on review of the record and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should provide an opinion with detailed rationale that responds to the following: (a.) The examiner should discuss whether the Veteran had any skin symptoms somewhere other than his feet during and continuing from service. (b.) Is it at least as likely as not (50% or greater probability) that the Veteran's eczema was either incurred in or otherwise related to his military service? Please explain why. The examiner must discuss: (i) whether the in-service diagnosis of tinea pedis could be a misdiagnosis; (ii) if the Veteran has had skin symptoms during and continuing from service, such symptoms must be discussed; and (iii) to the extent applicable, the medical articles submitted in March 2021. 4. If upon completion of the above action the issue remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Sandler, 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.