Citation Nr: 22016150 Decision Date: 03/21/22 Archive Date: 03/21/22 DOCKET NO. 17-39 811 DATE: March 21, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for discoid lupus erythematosus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1963 to November 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In March 2020, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing is of record. In December 2020, the Board issued a decision that denied entitlement to service connection for discoid lupus erythematosus. The Veteran appealed the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). In a November 2021 Order, pursuant to a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) filed by the parties, the Court vacated and remanded the December 2020 decision for compliance with the instructions in the JMR. This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c). 1. Entitlement to service connection for discoid lupus erythematosus is remanded. The parties to the JMR determined that the Board erred by finding the October 2020 VA examination adequate and compliant with the April 2020 remand order. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Specifically, the parties determined that the October 2020 VA examiner failed to address a July 1967 service retention examination and the Veteran's contention that the lesion on his cheek in service was undiagnosed discoid lupus erythematosus. The parties also determined that the October 2020 VA examiner failed to provide a sufficient rationale for concluding the Veteran's contention regarding his November 1967 separation examination "cannot in any way be endorsed." Next, the parties determined that the examiner's rationale regarding sun exposure and genetics was insufficient. In this regard, the parties found that the examiner failed to provide analysis of the Veteran's sun exposure or genetic factors, or how these factors may apply to the Veteran. Finally, the parties determined that the examiner failed to address the Veteran's lay statements concerning the onset of symptoms in service, symptoms continuing after service, and similar symptoms among others in his unit. Accordingly, a remand is warranted to obtain a new medical opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to address the claim for discoid lupus erythematosus. The claims file must be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. After review of the claims file, the examiner should respond to the following: (a.) Please provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (an approximate balance) that the Veteran's discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) arose during service. The examiner should explain why or why not, to include addressing the notation of a mark on the right cheek on the July 1967 service retention examination in conjunction with the Veteran's contention that a lesion on the cheek in service was undiagnosed DLE. The examiner should also address the Veteran's lay statements concerning the onset of symptoms during service, symptoms continuing after service, and similar symptoms among others in his unit. (b.) If DLE did not arise in service, the examiner should provide an opinion on whether the condition is at least as likely as not related to service, to include conceded exposure to herbicide agents or the result of sun exposure during service. In rendering the opinion, while the examiner is free to cite to studies by the National Institute of Health or any medical treatises in rendering the opinion, the examiner's rationale cannot rely solely on the fact that VA has not included DLE in the list of presumptive conditions. In other words, the Board needs an opinion as to the likelihood that this Veteran's DLE, without regard to the conditions VA recognizes as being due to Agent Orange exposure, is nevertheless at least as likely as not related to his exposure to herbicide agents in Vietnam. Additionally, the examiner should address how factors such as sun exposure and genetic factors apply to the Veteran with respect to his DLE. 2. If the claim remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Lance, 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.