Citation Nr: 1406348 Decision Date: 02/12/14 Archive Date: 02/24/14 DOCKET NO. 10-18 355 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Paul, Minnesota THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran and his wife ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Ogilvie, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1968 to March 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2009 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Paul, Minnesota, which denied a claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD and depressive disorder, not otherwise specified (NOS). In August 2011, the Veteran and his wife testified before the undersigned at a Board hearing by videoconference. A copy of the transcript is of record. The characterization of the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder has changed. Although the Veteran only filed a claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD, service connection was denied for PTSD and depressive disorder NOS in a December 2009 rating decision. Thus, the Board is expanding his claim to encompass all acquired psychiatric disabilities to correspond with the rating decision and the record. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009) (holding that the scope of a mental health disability claim includes any mental disability that may reasonably be encompassed by the claimant's description of the claim, reported symptoms, and the other information of record). The appeal is REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, D.C. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The Veteran seeks service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. Before the Board can adjudicate this claim on the merits, additional development is required. In order to establish service connection for a claimed disorder, generally, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (2013). Here, the Veteran has diagnoses of depressive disorder NOS and PTSD. He also has a nexus opinion, based on his statements, relating both disorders to service. The remaining element at issue is credible evidence of in-service disease or injury (for depressive disorder) and credible supporting evidence that the in-service stressor occurred (for PTSD). In February 2011, the RO associated with the record a memorandum of formal finding of lack of information required to corroborate stressors. In this memorandum, the RO only considered two reported non-personal assault stressors and failed to discuss the Veteran's alleged abuse by police, which he claimed in his October 2009 stressor statement. It remains unclear whether the RO attempted to verify this stressor. Further, the Veteran reported in an October 2010 statement that photographs were taken of his injuries, and he should be asked to submit or identify the location of such photographs. He has also claimed that he suffered from head trauma and crushed vertebrae. See December 2009 VA examination report. As such, the Veteran should be afforded the opportunity to identify the hospital that treated his severe injuries. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide a letter to the Veteran requesting that he either submit or identify the location of any outstanding evidence related to his stressors (e.g., photographs or hospital records related to alleged injuries; police reports). Also request, again, that the Veteran provide a 60-day time period for his stressor involving alleged physical abuse by police. 2. After an opportunity to respond, if adequate information has been submitted, attempt to verify the Veteran's stressor, including but not limited to obtaining any identified police reports and/or hospital records. All attempts to verify stressor(s) should be documented, and if there is a lack of information available to corroborate stressors or corroboration is unsuccessful, a memorandum of record should be associated with the claims file. 3. Thereafter, and after undertaking any additional development deemed necessary, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If any of the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, in whole or in part, provide the Veteran and his representative with a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afford them a reasonable opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. 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). _________________________________________________ S. C. KREMBS Acting 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) (2013).