Citation Nr: 22014907
Decision Date: 03/15/22	Archive Date: 03/15/22

DOCKET NO. 14-10 174
DATE: March 15, 2022

REMANDED

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB), prior to January 16, 2019, and in excess of 50 percent therefrom, is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from April 1995 to November 1999.  

In December 2016, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ).  A transcript of the hearing is of record.

In January 2018, the Board remanded the claim for further development.

In November 2020, the Board denied the Veteran's claim for entitlement to rating in excess of 10 percent for PFB.  However, in November 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) issued a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) vacating the Board's decision and remanding the claim for further development.  The parties to the JMR agreed that the Board erred in failing to ensure VA's duty to assist was satisfied when it relied on an inadequate VA examination.  The parties stated that in January 2018, the Board remanded the Veteran's claim to provide the Veteran a new dermatology examination.  In its remand instructions, the Board specifically instructed that the claims folder be made available to and reviewed by the examiner.  In January 2019, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination; however, the VA examiner noted that no records were reviewed.  Based on this information, the parties to the JMR agreed that the examination report failed to comply with the Board's July 2019 remand order.  

The parties also agreed that the Board erred when it failed to address whether a higher rating was warranted under diagnostic codes (DCs) 7800 and 7804.  The parties stated that in the decision, the Board acknowledged the DCs but did not provide any discussion of whether a higher rating was warranted in light of these DCs and the evidence of record.  Finally, the parties agreed that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons or bases when it failed to address whether it had jurisdiction over the issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent for PFB from January 2019 under DC 7800.  The parties noted that in July 2019, the agency increased the Veteran's rating to 50 percent.  The notification of this decision reflected that if the "decision satisfies your claim and you wish to withdraw all remaining issues associated with this appeal" to submit an Appeals Satisfaction Notice.  The Veteran did not submit a notice and did not withdraw the issue from appeal.  However, the Board failed to address the issue or explain why the issue was not addressed.

The Board finds that a new examination is warranted to address the concerns in the 2021 JMR.

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1.   Obtain and associate all outstanding VA and private treatment records with the claims file.

2.   Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current severity of his PFB.  The complete record, to include a copy of this remand and the claims folder, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination.  The examination report must include a notation that this record review took place.  All indicated tests and studies should be conducted.

The examiner should describe the nature and severity of all manifestations of the Veteran's PFB, to include the percentage of the entire body and exposed areas affected; the nature and frequency of any prescribed treatment, to include systemic therapy such as corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs, as well as the period of time prescribed during the prior 12 months; and the nature and severity of any residual scarring and/or disfigurement.  

The examiner should also describe the functional impairment resulting from the Veteran's PFB.

A rationale for any opinion offered should be provided.

3.   Then, readjudicate the issue on appeal.  If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and allow them an opportunity to respond.

 

 

MICHAEL LANE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Moore, T.

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.