Citation Nr: 22010663 Decision Date: 02/24/22 Archive Date: 02/24/22 DOCKET NO. 15-29 151 DATE: February 24, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a skin rash is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from June 1969 to April 1976, and in the U.S. Army from December 1990 to June 1991 with an additional period of U.S. Army National Guard service. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2011 rating decision by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In May 2019, the Board remanded this matter for further evidentiary development. Upon return of the appeal in October 2020, the Board denied entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a skin rash. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In September 2021, on the basis of a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), the Court vacated the October 2020 Board decision and remanded the matter for additional action consistent with the joint motion. As such, the issue is again before the Board. In October 2020, the Board also remanded entitlement to a finding of total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) for further evidentiary development. The claims file reflects that development is ongoing at the AOJ, and as such, this matter is not currently developed for appellate review. This appeal is limited to the issue on the title page. The September 2021 JMPR indicated that the Board erred when it failed to ensure substantial compliance with the May 2019 remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In its remand instructions, the Board directed the VA examiner to address whether the Veteran "experienced any flare-ups with his skin rash, and if so, whether there is any functional loss associated with those flare-ups" including residuals such as lack of sleep and constant itching and irritation. The JMPR noted that the January 2020 VA examination did not address whether the Veteran's skin rash required systemic or topical treatment during any 12-month period throughout the pendency of the appeal or whether he experienced any flare-ups that resulted in functional loss as directed by the Board's May 2019 remand. Further development is required in connection with the increased rating claim for the Veteran's service-connected skin rash. The JMPR directed that on remand, the Board must ensure VA obtains an adequate examination that complies with the May 2019 Board remand directives. Upon review of the record, the Board notes that the Veteran was most recently afforded a VA skin examination in January 2022 in connection with the pending claim for a TDIU. Nevertheless, such did not address flare-ups or whether the Veteran was prescribed systemic therapy, and, if so, the total duration of the systemic therapy for his service-connected skin disability pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7899-7806 (2018) as highlighted by the JMPR. The JMPR further directed attention to treatment notes dated December 2010 that reflected the Veteran was prescribed sertraline, metronidazole cream, lorazepam, and doxycycline. The Board also notes that the Veteran submitted a list of medications in January 2022. Therefore, a VA examination is warranted to determine the current nature and severity of the Veteran's skin rash. Updated private and VA treatment records should be requested on remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Contact the Veteran and request properly executed releases for any private care providers who have treated him for his skin rash. Upon receipt of such, VA must take appropriate action to contact the identified providers and request complete treatment records. The Veteran should be informed that in the alternative he may obtain and submit the records himself. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to ascertain the current nature and severity of his service-connected skin rash. The examiner must address any flare-ups that resulted in functional loss, residuals of the skin rash, and whether the Veteran was prescribed systemic therapy, and, if so, the total duration of such for his service-connected skin disability. The examiner should elicit a complete, detailed history of symptoms and treatment from the Veteran and include these in the examination report. Competent lay statements regarding the disability must be addressed. 3. Then, readjudicate the remanded issue. If the benefit sought remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case. The case should then be returned to the Board for appellate review if otherwise in order. WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board G.A. Ong, 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.