Citation Nr: 0500872 Decision Date: 01/12/05 Archive Date: 01/19/05 DOCKET NO. 03-15 361 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for bronchial asthma, to include as secondary to Agent Orange exposure. 2. Entitlement to service connection for alopecia areata, claimed as hair loss of the skin, to include as secondary to Agent Orange exposure. 3. Entitlement to service connection for other skin disability, claimed as jungle rot/dermatophytosis and rash, to include as secondary to Agent Orange exposures. WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Siobhan Brogdon, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from November 1964 until November 1968. This matter comes before the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a January 2003 rating decision of the Regional Office (RO) in Cleveland, Ohio. The veteran appeared for a hearing in April 2004 before the undersigned Member of the Board sitting at Cleveland, Ohio. The transcript is of record. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify you if further action is required on your part. REMAND The veteran contends that he was exposed to Agent Orange as the result of service in Vietnam, and now has several disabilities, including asthma, alopecia areata and jungle rot/dermatophytosis and skin rash as a result thereof for which service connection should be granted. A review of the record reflects that the veteran served in Vietnam from July 1966 to July 1967. The service medical records show that he was evaluated for alopecia areata in September 1965. Review of the record discloses that in a letter received in November 2001, the veteran's private physician, J. P., M.D., wrote that it was as likely as not that the appellant's bronchial asthma was related to his exposure to Agent Orange. In September 2002 a VA examination of the lungs and skin was conducted was conducted. The examiner opined that it was not more likely than not that asthma was related to military service. However, the report including the clinical history contains no reference to Agent Orange exposure. As such, the Board finds that current examinations are needed. VA outpatient records dated in October 2002 reflect treatment for conditions diagnosed as bilateral peripheral neuropathy of the forefoot, xerosis and bilateral onychomycosis. During his hearing before the undersigned Veteran's Law Judge, sitting at the RO in April 2004 that veteran referenced emergency treatment for asthma in June 1996 at a private facility. Of record are billing documents indicating that emergency services were rendered on May 31, 1996. The veteran continues to receive ongoing treatment at a VA facility. The Board finds that these records should be obtained. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The RO is requested to furnish the veteran with the appropriate release of information forms in order to obtain copies of private medical records pertaining to treatment on May 31 1996 9If pertinent to his clam) and Southside Medical Center Hospital fir June 1996 and any other VA and private medical records relative to his claim not previously submitted. 2. The RO should request the VA facility in Cleveland to furnish copies of any medical records pertaining to treatment for the disabilities in issue covering the period from October 2002 to the present. 3. Thereafterf, the veteran should be scheduled for examination by a VA dermatologist to determine the nature, severity, and etiology of any skin disorder now present, to include alopecia areata and any associated scaring. The claims file should be made available to the examiner in conjunction with the examination. All tests deemed necessary should be performed. The examiner is requested to obtain a detailed clinical history. Following the examination it is requested that the examiner render opinions as to the following: a) Whether it is as likely as not that any skin disorder diagnosed, including alopecia areata with claimed associated scarring, originated during service or is related to the veteran's exposure to Agent Orange? b) If it is determined that the alopecia areata existed prior to the veteran's entrance into active duty, whether it is as likely as not that the preservice alopecia areata underwent a chronic increase beyond natural progression during service, or following service as a result of Agent Orange exposure. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed should be included in the report. 4. The veteran should be scheduled for examination by a VA pulmonary specialist, to determine the nature, severity, and etiology of the veteran bronchial asthma. The claims file should be made available to the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examiner is requested to obtain a detailed clinical history. All tests deemed necessary should be performed. Following the examination it is requested that the examiner render an opinion as to whether the veteran now has bronchial asthma, if diagnosed is related to service, including exposure to Agent. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed should be included in the report. 5. Following completion of the requested development, the RO should re- adjudicate the issues in appellate status. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted, the appellant and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case and afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, the claims folder should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals 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 Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-183, § 707(a), (b), 117 Stat. 2651 (2003) (to be codified at 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112). _________________________________________________ ROBERT P. REGAN 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).