Citation Nr: 22017728
Decision Date: 03/26/22	Archive Date: 03/26/22

DOCKET NO. 18-25 298
DATE: March 26, 2022

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for squamous cell carcinoma is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from June 1977 to January 1986, from November 2003 to March 2005, and from March 2005 to October 2005. 

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

The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at Board hearing in February 2022. The transcript is of record.

1. Entitlement to service connection for squamous cell carcinoma is remanded.

This matter must be remanded to afford the Veteran a VA examination and to obtain an expert medical opinion as to etiology. That the Veteran has been diagnosed with the condition on appeal is not in dispute. The Veteran avers that his condition was caused by burn pit exposure or in the alternative, by in-service UV ray exposure, which contentions have not been evaluated by a VA examiner.

On remand, a VA examination must be conducted and an expert medical opinion regarding etiology obtained, to include a discussion of the above-noted contentions.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. After obtaining the necessary authorization, update the file with any VA or private treatment records relevant to the Veteran's claim. If any requested records are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified to that effect.

2. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with a qualified examiner to explore the etiology of his squamous cell carcinoma. All indicated tests and studies should be conducted and all clinical findings reported in detail. 

The examiner should state whether squamous cell carcinoma is at least as likely as not (e.g. at least a 50 percent probability or greater) related to service and explain why or why not.

The examiner is directed to consider as credible the Veteran's account of the nature of his service with respect to burn pit exposure and exposure to sunlight.

All opinions expressed must be accompanied by supporting rationale. 

3. Review the opinion and any examination report to ensure that it is in complete compliance with the directives of this remand. If the opinion or report is deficient in any manner, the AOJ must implement corrective procedures. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 

4. Re-adjudicate the claim.

 

 

GAYLE STROMMEN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Z. Sahraie, 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.