Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 40 percent for a lumbar spine disability is remanded.
Dr. Craig Bash has done thousands of case evaluations at the VA Hospital/regional office/BVA and court levels.
Complete list of BVA cases can be found at The Department of Veterans Affairs Website
(Search Dr. Bash, Craig N. Bash M.D., Dr. Craig Bash , Craig Bash, C.N.B.)
Citation Nr: 20071891 Decision Date: 11/06/20 Archive Date: 11/06/20 DOCKET NO. 14-25 618 DATE: November 6, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 40 percent for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy of the sciatic nerve is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for left lower extremity radiculopathy of the sciatic nerve is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee patellofemoral syndrome (PFS) is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee PFS is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for metatarsus adductus, right foot (right foot disability) is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for metatarsus adductus, left foot (left foot disability) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1982 to February 1983, from January 1988 to January 1992, and January 1992 to April 1993. His discharge from this last period of service has been characterized as dishonorable for VA purposes. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This case was last before the Board in June 2019, when it was remanded for additional development. The record reflects that the Veteran was sent a letter indicating that he could request a virtual tele-hearing instead of waiting for a travel board hearing. Upon further review, the Veteran does not have a pending hearing request. He provided testimony in a hearing with the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in February 2016. A transcript of that hearing is of record and has been considered as evidence. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder is remanded. 2. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 40 percent for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. 3. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy of the sciatic nerve is remanded. 4. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for left lower extremity radiculopathy of the sciatic nerve is remanded. 5. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee PFS is remanded. 6. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee PFS is remanded. 7. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a right foot disability is remanded. 8. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a left foot disability is remanded. The evidence indicates there may be outstanding relevant VA treatment records. VA treatment records from October 8, 2019 indicate that the Veteran was to return for a follow up appointment in July 2020. VA treatment records subsequent to January 6, 2020 have not been associated with the claims file. Additionally, a VA treatment record from November 7, 2012 notes that emergency room records from Grand Strand Medical Center had been scanned into VistA Imaging. It does not appear that the referenced record has been associated with the claims file. A remand to obtain the outstanding records is required. While the Veteran was provided VA skin examinations in January 2020, further clarification is warranted. Specifically, the examiner only addressed the Veteran’s dermatitis and did not acknowledge or address the other diagnoses present during the pendency of the appeal, including cellulitis, actinic keratosis, neoplasm. Additionally, in opining the Veteran’s dermatitis was less likely than not related to service the examiner incorrectly stated that the only documented in-service treatment for skin symptoms was during the Veteran’s period of dishonorable service. To the contrary, the Veteran’s service treatment records note treatment for a sore on his lip on May 11, 1989, a rash on October 20, 1990, and verrucous papules in July 11, 1991 Accordingly, the Board finds that an addendum opinion is warranted The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide the names and addresses of all medical care providers who have recently treated him for his claimed disabilities. After securing any necessary releases, the AOJ should request any relevant records identified. In addition, obtain updated VA treatment records dated since January 6, 2020 as well as the VistA Imaging records referenced in the November 7, 2012 VA record entry. If any requested records are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified of such. 2. After records development is completed to the extent possible, forward the claims file to a VA clinician to obtain an addendum opinion regarding the Veteran's skin claim. If an examination is deemed necessary to respond to the questions presented, one should be scheduled. Following review of the claims file, the clinician should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any skin disorder present during the pendency of the appeal arose during the Veteran’s period of active service prior to January 13, 1992 or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s active service prior to January 13, 1992, to include his service in the Persian Gulf, exposure to burning oil, and his vaccinations. The clinician is advised that the Veteran’s service from January 13, 1992 to April 16, 1993 is dishonorable for VA purposes and cannot be considered for compensation purposes. The clinician should address the documented diagnoses, including but not limited to, dermatitis, cellulitis, actinic keratosis, and neoplasm. In rendering the requested nexus opinion, the clinician should address the May 1993 VA treatment records pertaining to cellulitis, February 28, 2011 VA skin examination report, October 2, 2013 opinion from Dr. Bash, and the January 2020 VA skin examination report. A complete rationale should be provided for all opinions and conclusions expressed. 3. If the claims remain denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Anderson 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.