BVA9502773 DOCKET NO. 91-36 672 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Denver, Colorado THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for chronic folliculitis of multiple areas, currently evaluated at 50 percent. 2. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for a dysthymic disorder, currently evaluated at 30 percent. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL The appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Raymond F. Ferner, Counsel INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) on appeal from decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Denver, Colorado, (RO) which denied the benefit sought on appeal. The veteran, who had active service from May 1965 to August 1966, appealed those decisions to the BVA, and the case was initially received at the Board in July 1991. A BVA decision dated in June 1992 remanded the case for further development and the case was again received at the Board in March 1993. A July 1993 BVA decision affirmed the RO's denial of evaluations in excess of 50 percent for folliculitis of multiple areas and an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for a dysthymic disorder. The Board also affirmed the denial of claims for earlier effective dates for both disabilities. The veteran, with the assistance of John J. Michels, Jr., Esq., appeals the Board's decision to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) and in an Order, [citation redacted], the Court dismissed that portion of the appeal from the BVA decision which denied earlier effective dates for the evaluations for folliculitis and a dysthymic disorder, and vacated that portion of the BVA decision which denied increased evaluations for folliculitis and a dysthymic disorder, and remanded the case for compliance with instructions in the Joint Motion for Remand filed in the case. The case was returned to the Board in October 1994. Copies of the Court's order and the Joint Motion for Remand have been attached to this decision. REMAND The Joint Motion for Remand indicates that the VA dermatology and psychiatric examinations conducted in connection with this appeal were inadequate for rating purposes. As such, further examinations must be conducted pursuant to the instructions of the Joint Motion for Remand. Also, the Joint Motion for Remand noted that consideration was not given to evaluating the veteran's skin disability under the Note of 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7899-7800 (1994), as opposed to evaluating the disability under 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7899-7806 (1994). Further consideration of this matter by the RO is, therefore, necessary. Therefore, in order to give the veteran every consideration with respect to the present appeal, it is the Board's opinion that further development of this case is necessary. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The veteran should be afforded a dermatology examination of his multiple area folliculitis to ascertain the nature, severity and manifestations of the disability. Any and all evaluations, studies, and tests deemed necessary by the examiner should be accomplished, but the examination report must include unretouched photographs of all affected areas, including the head, face and neck. If the examination discloses the presence of disfiguring scars of the head, face or neck, the examiner is requested to offer an opinion and comments as to the degree of disfigurement or deformity in terms of the nomenclature set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7800 (1994). If possible, the examiner is also requested to indicate whether the severity and manifestations of the veteran's skin disability was the same or similar to that shown on the current examination between the time frame of August 4, 1988, and November 17, 1989. Since it is important "that each disability be viewed in relation to its history[,]" 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (1994), copies of all pertinent medical records in the veteran's claims file or, in the alternative, the claims file, must be made available to the examiner for review prior to, and during, the examination. 2. The veteran should be afforded a psychiatric examination to ascertain the severity and manifestations of the veteran's dysthymic disorder. Any and all indicated evaluations, studies, and tests deemed necessary by the examiner should be accomplished, but should include psychological testing. The primary purpose of the examination is to attempt to differentiate and quantify the degree of social and industrial impairment caused by the veteran's service-connected psychiatric disability and that produced by any other psychiatric disorder identified on examination. The examiner must assign an Axis V diagnosis (Global Assessment of Functioning scale) consistent with the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (3rd ed. rev. 1987), and explain what the assigned score represents. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed would be helpful. The examiner is also requested to attempt to quantify the degree of social and industrial impairment due to the veteran's service- connected dysthymic disorder in terms of the nomenclature in 38 C.F.R. § 4.132, Diagnostic Code 9405 (1994). If possible, the examiner is also requested to attempt to quantify the degree of social and industrial impairment caused by the veteran's service-connected dysthymic disorder in the time between June 15, 1989, and November 17, 1989. Since it is important "that each disability be viewed in relation to its history[,]" 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (1994), copies of all pertinent medical records in the veteran's claims file or, in the alternative, the claims file, must be made available to the examiner for review prior to, and, during the examination. 3. After the development requested in the first paragraph has been completed, the RO should consider evaluating the veteran's skin disability under Note 1 of 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7800 (1994). If such an evaluation is determined to be inappropriate the RO should provide complete rationale for the decision. When the development requested has been completed, the case should again be reviewed by the RO on the basis of the additional evidence. If the benefits sought are not granted, the veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case, and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. The purpose of this REMAND is to comply with the joint motion for remand, and the Board does not intimate any opinion in this case, either favorable or unfavorable at this time. The veteran is free, of course, to submit any additional evidence he desires to have considered in connection with the current claim. No action is required of the veteran until he is notified. WARREN W. RICE, JR. 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. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. 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) (1993).