Citation Nr: 0404789 Decision Date: 02/20/04 Archive Date: 02/27/04 DOCKET NO. 00-16 644 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Albuquerque, New Mexico THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for dermatitis, including as secondary exposure to Agent Orange. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Knight Enferadi, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from September 1966 to September 1969. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 1999 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the veteran if further action is required on his part. REMAND The veteran claims that his dermatitis was incurred during service as a result of exposure to Agent Orange. The Board believes that the record as it stands currently is inadequate for the purpose of rendering an informed decision. Where the record before the Board is inadequate to render a fully informed decision, a remand to the RO is required in order to fulfill its statutory duty to assist the veteran to develop the facts pertinent to the claim. Ascherl v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 371, 377 (1993). Specifically, the Board points to a private physician's statements dated in March and September 2000 to the effect that the veteran had been undergoing treatment for exfoliative dermatitis secondary to exposure to Agent Orange. The physician offered nothing more to support his statements. Additionally, in VA outpatient records, it is noted that the veteran had a diagnosis of prurigo nodularis and psoriasis without indication of the etiology. Further, no current VA examination report is associated with the record. The Board also notes that the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (2000) was signed into law and is applicable to this appeal. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, and 5107 (West 2002). To implement the provisions of the law, VA promulgated regulations. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a). The Act includes an enhanced duty on the part of VA to notify a claimant of the information and evidence needed to substantiate a claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b). In addition, it defines the obligation of VA with respect to its duty to assist the claimant in obtaining evidence. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). The revised duty to assist requires VA make reasonable efforts to assist the claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate a claim, make reasonable efforts to obtain relevant records adequately identified and authorized by the claimant, notify the claimant of the efforts taken to obtain those records, describe further action to be taken by VA, and make continued efforts to obtain records from a federal government department or agency unless it is reasonably certain that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain those records would be futile. See 38 C.F.R § 3.159(c). The Board hereby directs the RO to complete the following directives: 1. In a letter, the RO should inform the veteran of his right to submit new evidence, describe the type of evidence needed to substantiate his claim, and provide a discussion of the relative duties of the VA and the veteran in obtaining relevant evidence. This letter should contain a summary of the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103 and 5103A. 2. The RO should obtain the names and addresses of all medical care providers who treated the veteran for any skin disorder, including dermatitis since his separation from service in September 1969. After securing the necessary release(s), the RO should obtain records of such treatment. 3. The RO should contact Dr. R.K. Sanchez and ask that he provide a rationale for his opinions rendered in March and September 2000 as to the relationship between any post-service dermatitis or other skin disorder and his period of service, to include exposure to herbicides and/or Agent Orange. 4. The veteran should be afforded a VA dermatological examination to determine the nature and etiology of his current disability and render an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the veteran's current disability manifested by symptoms of psoriasis, dermatitis, or prurigo nodularis is related to service, and to exposure to herbicides or Agent Orange in particular. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner for review before the examination. 5. After the development requested above has been completed to the extent possible, the RO should again review the veteran's appeal. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the veteran and representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given the opportunity to respond thereto. The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded to the regional office. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West 2002) (Historical and Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.43 and 38.02. _________________________________________________ JAMES L. MARCH Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2003).