Citation Nr: 1328558 Decision Date: 09/06/13 Archive Date: 09/16/13 DOCKET NO. 09-43 848 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boise, Idaho THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran and his Spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Tiffany Berry, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran retired from active duty in March 2004. He had served 20 years. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a November 2008 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Diego, California on behalf of the RO in Boise, Idaho. In July 2012 the Veteran and his Spouse testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in a videoconference hearing from the RO. A transcript of their testimony is of record. In October 2012, the Board issued a decision denying service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. This decision was appealed to the U. S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court/CAVC). In a June 2013 order, granting a joint motion, the Court vacated the Board's decision with respect to this claim, and remanded it to the Board for further development and readjudication in compliance with directives specified. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required. REMAND The Veteran is claiming entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. Service treatment records (STRs) show no treatment for psychiatric complaints. In a self-reported Report of Medical History in January 2004 the Veteran endorsed history of occasional/infrequent panic attacks for the past year. However, the corresponding Report of Medical Examination shows psychiatric evaluation as "normal." Since his discharge from service, the Veteran has been diagnosed with anxiety depression, with bipolar disorder and with anxiety disorder NOS. The Veteran generally asserts he had undocumented symptoms of anxiety and depression during service that later developed into bipolar disorder. The June 2013 Joint Motion determined that a March 2010 VA examination was inadequate for rating purposes. Specifically, the Joint Motion found that the March 2010 examiner relied on the absence of treatment for or a diagnosis of a psychiatric disability during service. Additionally, the March 2010 examiner failed to discuss the contemporaneous notation in the Veteran's service treatment records regarding his history of panic attacks in service when rendering an opinion, as well as whether anxiety is a separate diagnosis, and if so, whether it is related to service. As such, the Veteran should be scheduled for another examination to address these deficiencies. On remand, the RO should also obtain and associate with the claims file any relevant VA treatment records dated since September 2011. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any additional and relevant VA treatment records dated from September 2011 to the present. 2. Then, send the c-file to the VA compensation examiner who conducted the March 2010 VA examination. If, for whatever reason, this examiner is no longer available or able to provide the addendum opinion, then it should be obtained from another qualified person. The claims file should be reviewed and an opinion rendered as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any of the Veteran's diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorders had their onset in/was manifested during service, or is otherwise related to service. The reviewer is asked to specifically address the reports of the Veteran's in-service panic attacks, and whether anxiety is a separate diagnosis, and if so, whether it is related to service. A complete rationale should be provided for any opinion expressed. If a medically sound opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, an explanation as to why that is so should be included, to include a recitation of the facts necessary to render a non- speculative opinion. If it is necessary to examine the Veteran to obtain the requested opinion, that should be arranged. 3. Thereafter, the RO/AMC should review the evidence obtained and readjudicate the Veteran's claim. If the claim remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case and given an opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board for further appellate review. The Veteran 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). _________________________________________________ MICHAEL E. KILCOYNE 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).