Citation Nr: 21032863 Decision Date: 05/28/21 Archive Date: 05/28/21 DOCKET NO. 17-16 075 DATE: May 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for seasonal allergic rhinitis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from February 1987 to November 2007. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Waco, Texas. In November 2019, the Veteran testified at a Board video-conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the record. Later in November 2019, the Board remanded the case to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development, seeking updated treatment records and a new VA examination. After taking further action, the AOJ confirmed and continued the prior rating and returned the case to the Board. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claim and to afford him every possible consideration. Entitlement to a compensable rating for seasonal allergic rhinitis is remanded. The Veteran's allergic rhinitis is evaluated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6522. Under that diagnostic code, a 10 percent rating is warranted if the claimant is "[w]ithout polyps, but with greater than 50-percent obstruction of nasal passage on both sides or complete obstruction on one side." The rating criteria do not account for the ameliorative effects of medication. See Jones v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 56, 63 (2012) (holding that "the Board may not deny entitlement to a higher rating on the basis of relief provided by medication when those effects are not specifically contemplated by the rating criteria"). On multiple VA examinations conducted during the period on appeal, the Veteran's allergic rhinitis has not been shown to be manifested by greater than 50-percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides, or complete obstruction on one side, so as to warrant a compensable rating. The record reflects, however, that he has been treated for allergic rhinitis with medication and/or "allergy shots" (immunotherapy) throughout the period on appeal. Because the rating criteria do not account for the ameliorative effects of medication, and the record does not otherwise indicate the likelihood that the Veteran's condition would be manifested by the requisite level of obstruction in the absence of such medication, further development is necessary. 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. After the foregoing development has been completed, make arrangements to provide the record on appeal to the VA examiner who previously evaluated the Veteran's allergic rhinitis in March 2020. The examiner should be asked to review the expanded record and prepare a supplemental report setting out a retrospective opinion with respect to whether, at any time since July 2012, if the Veteran was not being treated with medication and/or "allergy shots" (immunotherapy) for his allergic rhinitis, it is at least as likely as not (i.e., it is 50 percent or more probable) that his disability would have been manifested by greater than 50-percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides or complete obstruction on one side. If the March 2020 examiner is no longer employed by VA or is otherwise unable to provide the opinion requested, arrange to obtain the requested information from another qualified examiner. The need for another examination and/or telephonic or video interview of the Veteran is left to the discretion of the examiner selected to offer 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 readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the 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 F. Lanton, 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.