Citation Nr: 21040781
Decision Date: 07/07/21	Archive Date: 07/07/21

DOCKET NO. 17-01 215
DATE: July 7, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for tinea versicolor (chest, back, arms, and legs), to include pseudofolliculitis barbae (hereinafter "skin disability"), is remanded.

REASONS AND BASES FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from August 2006 to August 2014.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  

This case was remanded in December 2018 for further development; it has since been re-assigned to the undersigned.

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for service-connected skin disability is remanded.

The medical evidence associated with the record appears to be incomplete.  The claim file includes private treatment records from The Permanente Medical Group from 2017 to 2018; records indicate that the Veteran was being recommended for light therapy.  Additionally, a June 2019 VA treatment record notes that the Veteran continues to receive treatment from that private provider.  As private treatment records are likely to contain pertinent information related to the Veteran's claim, they should be obtained.  Additionally, the most recent VA treatment records associated with the record are from March 2020.  Any additional VA treatment records should be obtained on remand.

The Veteran should also be scheduled for an examination (or telehealth interview) to determine whether his nonservice-connected pruritus can be distinguished from his service-connected skin disability and to determine whether his service-connected skin disability required constant or near constant systemic therapy at any time during the appeal period as the November 2019 VA examination did not adequately address these medical questions.

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain, if possible, records of relevant private evaluations and treatment the Veteran has received, to include from The Permanente Medical Group. 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.

2. Obtain copies of VA treatment records from March 2020 to the present.

3. After the above development is completed, arrange for a VA examination (or telehealth interview) of the Veteran to determine the current severity of his service-connected skin disability. 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) Is the Veteran's diagnosis of pruritus distinct from his service-connected skin disability?  The examiner must make an effort to distinguish between the Veteran's symptoms that are attributable to his service-connected skin disability and the symptoms that are attributable to pruritus. If it is not possible to distinguish between the two, the examiner must specifically state so.

(b) Has the Veteran's service-connected skin disability required constant or near-constant systemic therapy (i.e., pertaining to or affecting the body as a whole) at any time during the appeal period (September 2014)?  If so, when?

In answering this question, the examiner is instructed to review the Veteran's medication lists found in VA and private treatment records, to include but not limited to his use of Atarax, Cetirizine, Selenium Sulfide, and Fluconazole, and ask the Veteran what medications he takes for each skin disability and the frequency of such.

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	T. Matta, 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.