Citation Nr: 1320147 Decision Date: 06/21/13 Archive Date: 07/02/13 DOCKET NO. 10-13 713 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston, Texas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability, to include anxiety disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Meawad, Counsel INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c), the appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket. The Veteran served on active duty from August 1972 to August 1975. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a June 2007 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas. The issue has been recharacterized to more accurately reflect the medical evidence and the Veteran's claim. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). In June 2011, the Veteran testified at a video conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. In August 2011, the Board adjudicated the Veteran's claim on appeal. The Veteran appealed the issue to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the Court). In a January 2013 decision, the Court set aside in part the August 2011 Board decision with regard to the issue of service connection for a psychiatric disability and remanded the matter to the Board for readjudication consistent with its decision. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The Veteran's service treatment records reveal no psychiatric treatment. The claims file contains no relevant post-service VA or private treatment records. The Veteran reported several stressful events that occurred during service. In a February 2010 VA examination, the VA examiner noted that, although the alleged stressors "would be stressful enough to be considered for a diagnosis of PTSD," he determined that the Veteran "does not report symptoms of sufficient quantity to warrant a full diagnosis of PTSD." The Veteran was diagnosed as having an anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified. The examiner stated that the Veteran appeared to be coping adequately and contributed meaningfully to his family and, therefore, opined that it did "not appear that the [V]eteran's current symptoms of anxiety [were] due to or related to the military service." The Court found this opinion inadequate as the examiner failed to explain why the Veteran's anxiety disorder was unrelated to his service. As such, another opinion is necessary in this case. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 125 (2007); 38 U.S.C.A. § 1111; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4); 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate examination to determine the etiology of his psychiatric disability. The examination report must reflect review of all pertinent material in the claim folder. The examiner is to offer an opinion as to the etiology of any diagnosed psychiatric disability, to include whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that any current psychiatric disability is related to active service. The examination report must include a complete rationale for all opinions expressed. If the examiner feels that a requested opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (i.e. no one could respond given medical science and the known facts) or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner (i.e. additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training). 2. Review the claims file to ensure that all of the foregoing development has been completed, and arrange for any additional development indicated. Then readjudicate the claim on appeal. If the benefit sought remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case and provide the Veteran and his representative an appropriate period of time to respond. The case is to then be returned to the Board for further appellate review. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter 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 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2012). _________________________________________________ RONALD W. SCHOLZ 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) (2012).