Designated for Electronic Publication Only UNITED STATES COURT OF
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Designated for electronic publication only UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS No. 19-8685 ANTHONY M. REBICH, APPELLANT, V. DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. Before MEREDITH, Judge. MEMORANDUM DECISION Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a), this action may not be cited as precedent. MEREDITH, Judge: The appellant, Anthony M. Rebich, through counsel appeals a November 6, 2019, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision that granted an effective date of August 22, 2011, but no earlier, for the award of benefits for chloracne, and denied entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30% for that condition. Record (R.) at 4-14. The Board's assignment of an effective date as early as August 22, 2011, is a favorable finding that the Court may not disturb. See Medrano v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 165, 170 (2007), aff'd in part, dismissed in part sub nom. Medrano v. Shinseki, 332 F. App'x 625 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Bond v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 376, 377 (1992) (per curiam order) ("This Court's jurisdiction is confined to the review of final Board . decisions which are adverse to a claimant."). The appellant raises no arguments with respect to the Board's denial of a disability rating in excess of 30% for chloracne. Accordingly, the Court considers that matter abandoned and will dismiss the appeal as to that matter. See Pederson v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 276, 285 (2015) (en banc). The Board remanded the matter of entitlement to benefits for bladder cancer, and that matter is not before the Court at this time. See Breeden v. Principi, 17 Vet.App. 475, 478 (2004) (per curiam order) (a Board remand "does not represent a final decision over which this Court has jurisdiction"); Hampton v. Gober, 10 Vet.App. 481, 483 (1997) (claims remanded by the Board may not be reviewed by the Court). This appeal is timely, and the Court has jurisdiction to review the Board's decision pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and 7266(a). Single-judge disposition is appropriate. See Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 23, 25-26 (1990). For the following reasons, the Court will vacate that part of the Board's decision denying entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 22, 2011, for the award of benefits for chloracne and remand that matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision. I. BACKGROUND The appellant served on active duty in the U.S. Army from December 1966 to December 1969, including service in Vietnam. R. at 4467. His service medical records reflect complaints of and treatment for skin problems, including cysts in his ear, on his elbow, and behind his eyes, R. at 2380, 2384, 2396, 2402, 2412; neurodermatitis and contact dermatitis, R. at 2386, 2433; and a fungal infection, R. at 3825. Shortly after his separation from service, the appellant filed a claim for benefits for "[j]ungle [r]ot–[f]ungus." R. at 4474. At a VA medical examination in February 1970, the examiner noted "a small patch of tiny red papules grouped together" on the back of the appellant's left hand and a "large . erythematous patch extending across the [right] wrist and down the ulna," with "several deep fissures through the center," as well as "groups of vesicles extending into the adjacent normal appearing skin[,] causing an over[]hanging border of loose skin in places." R. at 4462. The examiner recorded the following history: [The appellant] noted the onset of vesicles on his hands in June or July 1967 while in the fighting zone in Viet Nam with the paratroopers. The vesicles appeared at the flexor surface of both wrists on the ulnar sides[,] spreading across the wrists and on to the palm of the right hand and the backs of both hands. His feet soon became involved also[,] and he was called a case of jungle rot and was treated with a cream and told that everything would clear when he returned to the United States. Upon returning to this country in February 1968[,] his rash did indeed clear completely[,] and his feet have had no further involvement. In September or October 1969[,] while still in the Army[,] the eruption recurred on his right hand and has remained ever since with some improvement and then relapses. Involvement appeared on the back of the left hand in January 1970. 2 Id. The examiner removed some vesicle tops and tested them for fungus, but found none. Id. The examiner also noted that both the appellant's palms were "hyperhidrotic[1] and there were a few scattered abrasions over his knuckles along with erythematous macules." R. at 4462, 4465. The examiner diagnosed "[c]hronic dyshidrosis (dishydrosiform dermatitis)" and stated that the condition was recurrent and that its cause was unknown, although "irritants and tension will precipitate attacks quite frequently." R. at 4465. In June 1970, a VA regional office (RO) granted benefits for chronic dyshidrosis and assigned a 10% disability rating, effective December 19, 1969, the day after the appellant's separation from service. R. at 4410. The RO noted the in-service treatment for neurodermatitis, contact dermatitis, and cysts, as well as the indication on the appellant's separation examination report that he had a fungal infection of the right hand. Id. In a November 1974 letter to VA, the appellant requested a medical appointment to have his "hand checked for a skin condition," as well as to have his back, legs, neck, and ears checked. R. at 4383. He noted that he had been prescribed a topical cream to treat his condition and stated that he wanted to file a claim for the condition. Id. VA afforded the appellant an examination in October 1975. R. at 4323-26. The examiner noted only a "few dry scaling areas" on the appellant's right palm and indicated that the extent of the lesions was "minimal." R. at 4324. The examiner determined that the appellant's chronic dyshidrosis was in remission. R. at 4326. Based on that examination, the RO continued the assigned 10% disability rating for the appellant's skin condition. R. at 4320-21. The record reflects that, as of April 1985, the appellant had filed a "timely preliminary claim to participate in the Agent Orange Product Liability Settlement." R. at 1856; see R. at 1857. By virtue of filing such a claim, the appellant was "enrolled in the Agent Orange Veteran Payment Program" and could apply for disability benefits. R. at 1856. In March 1990, VA advised the appellant that the recent decision in Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans' Administration might affect his entitlement to benefits based on exposure to Agent Orange.2 R. at 28. VA further advised that, once the Agency issued new regulations, it would 1 Hyperhidrosis is "excessive sweating." DORLAND'S MEDICAL DICTIONARY ONLINE, https:// www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=23821&searchterm=hyperhidrosis (last visited Jan. 28, 2021). 2 Nehmer was a class action in which Vietnam veterans and their survivors alleged that, in promulgating regulations governing compensation for diseases attributed to Agent Orange, VA failed to comply with the Dioxin 3 allow veterans whose claims had been denied after September 25, 1985, and those veterans whose claims were then pending, to present additional evidence and argument. Id. VA explained that, if a veteran had already filed a claim that had been finally denied—that is, all appeals exhausted— the Agency was not required under Nehmer to reopen the claim, but that the veteran could file a new claim. R. at 29. The appellant sought VA treatment in August 2004 for his service-connected skin condition. R. at 4130. He reported to the physician that he had been seen in the dermatology department at the Mayo Clinic but stated that "they really did not come up with a specific diagnosis" and instead prescribed several creams and medications. Id. A skin examination revealed "some minor healing excoriations on his neck, face, and arms, but no significant lesions." R. at 4131. The physician diagnosed "[d]ermatitis of unclear etiology." Id. In September 2004, the appellant sought an increased disability rating for his skin condition. R. at 4199. VA obtained private treatment records that revealed a sebaceous cyst on his face. R. at 4145, 4147. VA afforded the appellant a medical examination in January 2005. R. at 4095-96. The examiner noted that the appellant's claims file was not available. R. at 4095. After recounting the appellant's history of skin problems, including "burning, pruritic, papules" that cluster on his face, ears, neck, and hands, id., the examiner offered the following impression: "Skin disorder previously diagnosed as dyshidrotic eczema dating back to his military service in Viet Nam. It is, I believe, caused by or the result of his military service and has increased in frequency of exacerbations over the years," R. at 4096. In March 2005, the RO increased the appellant's disability rating for chronic dyshidrotic eczema to 30%, effective August 16, 2004. R. at 4117-22. The appellant did not appeal that decision. The appellant retained current counsel in February 2010. R. at 3805-08. Later that year, he sought an increased disability rating for his skin condition. R. at 3728. At a November 2010 VA skin diseases examination, the appellant reported that his eczema had gotten progressively and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act. 712 F. Supp. 1404 (N.D. Cal. 1989); see also Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans' Admin., 284 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2002); Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans' Admin., 32 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (N.D.