BVA9504659 DOCKET NO. 92-22 261 DATE JAN 27 1995 On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Los Angeles, California THE ISSUE Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for tinea pedis and pyoderma of both feet. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jeffrey J. Schueler, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from May 1955 to May 1959. In the August 1991 rating action, from which the veteran appeals, the regional office (RO) denied his claim for a compensable evaluation for tinea pedis and pyoderma of the right foot. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) remanded the case in January 1994 for the RO to adjudicate the veteran's claim of service connection for a skin disorder of the left foot. In a May 1994 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for a left foot skin disorder, assigning a noncompensable evaluation, and denied a compensable evaluation for tinea pedis and pyoderma of both feet. The issue on appeal, therefore, is entitlement to an increased rating for tinea pedis and pyoderma of both feet. The veteran at his hearing raised the issue of entitlement to a total raring for compensafion based on individual unemployability. This matter is referred to the RO for appropriate action. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that his skin disorder has increased in severity so as to warrant a compensable evaluation. He maintains that he cannot walk more than one block or stand for more than 15 minutes, that his lower legs become painful and swell from his feet to his knees and cramp when lying down. He asserts that he must constantly apply ointments especially after showering and cannot wear shoes, but must rely on slippers and sandals. He further notes that he cannot wear certain types of stocking because of the irritation. The veteran's representative finally contends that the VA examination of April 1992 is stale and requests a reexamination. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. 7104 (West 1991), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for a compensable evaluation for tinea pedis and pyoderma of both feet. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All available relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's claim has been obtained by the RO. 2. The veteran's tinea pedis and pyoderma of both feet is not on a exposed surface or extensive area. They are intermittent at best and not present in April 1992. The manifestations of the skin disorders are slight. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a compensable evaluation for tinea pedis and pyoderma of both feet are not met. 38 U.S.C.A. 1155, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. 3.321(b)(1), 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7813-7806 (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Board initially finds that the veteran's claim is well-grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. 5107(a) (West 1991); that is, it is not implausible. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) thereby has a statutory obligation to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. 3.103(a), 3.159 (1993). A review of the claims folder indicates that the RO assisted the veteran in attempting to obtain copies of private and VA clinical records, and by affording him a VA examination in April 1992. The veteran's representative argued in October and November 1994 statements that the veteran be afforded another VA examination as the April 1992 examination was stale. However, the representative had not provided any evidence that the skin disorder has worsened and to schedule another examination just because the most recent one in the record is two years old is not an adequate reason to do so. Historically, the service medical records do not show that the veteran received treatment for his skin disorder during active service. The separation examination, however, showed dermatitis of the right foot, and an August 1960 VA examination showed two solitary involuted bullae on the left planter surface from which mycelia were isolated and other involved bullae on the planter surface of the right foot. There was a more pertinent and intricate condition on the lateral surfaces of both feet near the ankles, which was composed of pyoderma. The diagnoses were tinea pedis and pyoderma, right foot. In August 1960 service connection was granted for tinea pedis and pyoderma right foot with a noncompensable evaluation. Disability evaluations are determined by application of a schedule of ratings based on average impairment of earning capacity. 38 U.S.C.A. 1155 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. Part 4 (1993). The veteran's skin disorder is rated under Diagnostic Code 7813- 7806 as for eczema. Diagnostic Code 7813-7806 provides a noncompensable evaluation with slight, if any, exfoliation, exudation or itching, if on a nonexposed surface or small area. A 10 percent evaluation is warranted for the skin disorders where there is exfoliation, exudation, or itching, if involving an exposed surface or extensive area. The skin disorders with exudation or itching constant, extensive lesions, or marked disfigurement warrant a 30 percent evaluation. 38 C.F.R. 4.118, Diagnostic Codes 7813-7806 (1993). In August 1991 copies of the veteran's records beginning in 1987 were received from the Social Security Administration. They have no probative value as they contain no reference to skin disorders of the feet. Of record are VA outpatient treatment records from August 1990 through January 1992 which disclosed numerous complaints regarding various non-service connected problems. However, there is only one record of a mild rash on the feet and that was in May 1991. The veteran testified at an April 1992 personal hearing that he recently had to retire because the walking that was required of his employment. He testified that he could sit up and pull his shoes off, but that he had to constantly keep moving to prevent the feet from hurting. He stated that he could walk for about three blocks, and that the pain runs from his feet up his calf. He reported that any type of shoes hurt his feet, and that he usually wears slippers and sandals. The veteran testified that he puts lotion on his feet each day and sometimes soaks them in hot water. He stated that the rash he get's does not come too often. In an April 1992 VA skin examination, an examiner noted as history that the veteran complained of intermittent blistering bilateral foot rash since he separated from the Navy in 1959. He complained of pain and burning of the feet and legs. The examiner reported that there was minimal scaling on the soles of the veteran's feet, that there were no vesicles, and that the toenails were clear. KOH testing on the soles of the feet was negative. The diagnosis recorded was of tinea pedis, pompholyx, and allergic contact. The impression noted on an April 1992 VA x-ray study was of gout involving metatarsophalangeal articulation and interphalangeal articulations of the first digits bilaterally. The veteran was also afforded a VA orthopedic examination in April 1992, conducted in conjunction with the skin examination, wherein a diagnosis was made of chronic bilateral foot pain, probably multifactorial and related to planter fasciitis, metatarsalgia, and neuropathy. However the veteran is not service connected for these orthopedic problems. Basically the file contains medical records from 1987 through April 1992 and the only finding of a skin disorder was a mild skin rash in May 1991 and mild scaling of the soles of the feet in April 1992. The service connected skin disorders are obviously intermittent as the veteran testified. They are also no more than slight as contemplated under Diagnostic Code 7813-7806. Consideration has also been given to the potential application of the various provisions of 38 C.F.R. Parts 3 and 4, as mandated in Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589 (1991). In particular, we find the evidence discussed above does not suggest the veteran's tinea pedis and pyoderma of both feet presents such an exceptional or unusual disability picture as to render impractical the application of the regular scheduler standards as to warrant the assignment of an extraschedular evaluation under 38 C.F.R. 3.321(b)(1) (1993). The service connected disability has not required frequent periods of hospitalization. Nor does the record demonstrate a marked interference with employment due to the service-connected tinea pedis and pyoderma of both feet. Further the positive and negative evidence are not in equipose. 38 U.S.C.A. 5107(b) (West 1991). ORDER Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for tinea pedis and pyoderma of both feet is denied. E. M. KRENZER Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, 6, 108 Stat. 740, _ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. 7266 (West 1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, 402 (1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.