Citation Nr: 23019388 Decision Date: 03/29/23 Archive Date: 03/29/23 DOCKET NO. 18-22 456 DATE: March 29, 2023 REMANDED Service connection for an eye disability is remanded. Service connection for a skin disability is remanded. Service connection a colon disability is remanded. Service connection for the residuals of a burst appendix is remanded. An initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably in the United States Army from August 1987 to June 1990. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office made in February 2018August 2018 and February 2018August 2018. This appeal is being adjudicated under the legacy appellate framework. The Veteran testified at a personal hearing before the Board in February 2022February 2022. Due to technical issues, the hearing transcript was incomplete. The Veteran was scheduled for another hearing and testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in December 2022. A December 2022 transcript of the hearing is of record. 1. Service connection for an eye disability is remanded. 2. Service connection for a skin disability is remanded. 3. Service connection a colon disability is remanded. At issue is whether the Veteran is entitled to service connection for an eye disability, a skin disability, and a colon disability. Specifically, the Veteran alleges that as a chemical weapons specialist he was exposed to a number of toxic substances including nerve agent and fog oil, and that this led to his claimed eye, skin, and colon disabilities. The Veteran has provided competent sworn testimony regarding eye, skin, and colon symptoms. Additionally, the Veteran's DD214 confirms that the Veteran was a chemical weapons specialist and makes the Veteran's reports of toxic exposure quite credible. This is sufficient to trigger VA's duty to assist, and these mattes must be remanded to provide the Veteran appropriate VA examinations discussing these contentions. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). 4. Service connection for the residuals of a burst appendix is remanded. The Veteran alleges that his burst appendix was caused by a colon disability. Therefore, the Veteran's appendix claim is inextricably intertwined with the Veteran's colon claim and must be remanded as well in order to avoid piecemeal appellate litigation. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). 5. An initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. At issue is whether the Veteran is entitled to an increased disability rating for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran testified at his most recent personal hearing before the Board that his hearing had gotten worse since his most recent VA examination. See December 2022 Transcript. Therefore, this matter must be remanded for a new VA examination in order to discuss the current severity of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding VA treatment records. 2. Then, arrange to provide the Veteran with a VA examination in order to discuss the following: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or more) that a medical nexus exists between an in-service incurrence and a current diagnosis of an eye disability? Why or why not? (b.) If not, then what did cause the Veteran's current eye disabilities? Why? (c.) What is the medical significance, if any, of the Veteran's reports of toxic exposure? Why? (d.) What is the medical significance, if any, of any literature associated with the claims file discussing the medical effects of toxic exposure? Why? 3. Arrange to provide the Veteran with a VA examination in order to discuss the following: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or more) that a medical nexus exists between an in-service incurrence and a current diagnosis of a skin disability? Why or why not? (b.) If not, then what did cause the Veteran's current skin disabilities? Why? (c.) What is the medical significance, if any, of the Veteran's reports of toxic exposure? Why? (d.) What is the medical significance, if any, of any literature associated with the claims file discussing the medical effects of toxic exposure? Why? 4. Arrange to provide the Veteran with a VA examination in order to discuss the following: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or more) that a medical nexus exists between an in-service incurrence and a current diagnosis of a colon disability? Why or why not? (b.) If not, then what did cause the Veteran's current colon disabilities? Why? (c.) What is the medical significance, if any, of the Veteran's reports of toxic exposure? Why? (d.) What is the medical significance, if any, of any literature associated with the claims file discussing the medical effects of toxic exposure? Why? (e.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or more) that the Veteran's burst appendix was proximately due to or aggravated by the Veteran's claimed colon disabilities? Why or why not? (f.) If the Veteran's burst appendix or any residuals thereof was aggravated by the Veteran's claimed colon disabilities then please provide an estimate of the baseline severity of the Veteran's burst appendix or any residuals thereof absent any disabling effects? Why? (g.) What did cause the Veteran's appendix to burst? Why? 5. Arrange to provide the Veteran with a VA examination in order to determine the current severity of his bilateral hearing loss. R. Costello Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board David R. Seaton, 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.