Citation Nr: 1802794 Decision Date: 01/12/18 Archive Date: 01/23/18 DOCKET NO. 13-18 396 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Lincoln, Nebraska THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral corneal ectasia (also claimed as dry eye syndrome). 2. Entitlement to service connection posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Gandhi, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served honorably on active duty from October 1989 to January 2010 in the United States Navy. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2012 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Reno, Nevada. In October 2017, the Veteran testified at a Board video-conference hearing before the undersigned. A transcript is of record The appeal is REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required. REMAND Upon review of the record, the Board finds that the issues must be remanded. The Board sincerely regrets the additional delay caused by this remand, but wishes to assure the Veteran that it is necessary for a full and fair adjudication of his claims. A remand is necessary to obtain updated treatment records and to afford the Veteran new examinations so that the Board can gain a better understanding of the Veteran's current conditions. VA's duty to assist includes providing a medical examination when it is necessary to make a decision on a claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2017). Such development is necessary if the information and evidence of record does not contain sufficient competent medical evidence to decide the claim, but (1) contains competent evidence of diagnosed disability or symptoms of disability, (2) establishes that the Veteran suffered an event, injury or disease in service, or has a presumptive disease during the pertinent presumptive period, and (3) indicates that the claimed disability may be associated with the in-service event, injury, or disease, or with another service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83-86 (2006). Here, the Veteran received treatment for an eye condition and PTSD at the Lincoln VA and Omaha VA Medical Center (VAMC), has asserted that these conditions began in service, and has provided lay evidence, through testimony, that the conditions have continued since service; however, there is insufficient evidence of record to decide the claim. Consequently, remand for new examinations and etiology opinions are warranted. See id.; Locklear v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 410 (2006). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Assist the Veteran in associating with the claims folder updated treatment records. Contact the Veteran and afford him the opportunity to identify by name, address and dates of treatment or examination any relevant medical records. Subsequently, and after securing the proper authorizations where necessary, make arrangements to obtain all the records of treatment or examination from all the sources listed by the Veteran which are not already on file. All information obtained must be made part of the file. All attempts to secure this evidence must be documented in the claims file, and if, after making reasonable efforts to obtain named records, they are not able to be secured, provide the required notice and opportunity to respond to the Veteran and his representative. 2. Complete any necessary efforts to corroborate the Veteran's stressors, including the incident described in the Veteran's October 2017 hearing transcript involving Marines who died in a helicopter crash. If it is not possible to corroborate the stressor, enter a formal finding outlining all efforts to corroborate the stressor. 3. After any additional records are associated with the claims file, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral corneal ectasia condition. The claims file should be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the examination. Based on review of the record and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should respond to the following: * Is it at least as likely as not (probability of 50 percent or more) that the current bilateral corneal ectasia (also claimed as dry eye syndrome) had its onset in or is related to service? The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, and injuries, and that his reports must be taken into account in formulating the requested opinions, including, but not limited to the Veteran's lay statements of complaining of eye issues in during his service. The examiner must provide the rationale for all proffered opinions. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. 4. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's PTSD. The claims file should be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the examination. Based on review of the record and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should respond to the following: a. Does the Veteran meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD? If so, please identify the stressor(s) upon which the diagnosis is based. b. Is it at least as likely as not (probability of 50 percent or more) that the current PTSD had its onset in or is related to service? c. If the Veteran meets the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, does the Veteran suffer from symptomatology separate and distinct from his service-connected major depressive disorder? If so, please identify such symptomatology. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, and injuries, and that his reports must be taken into account in formulating the requested opinions, including, but not limited to the Veteran's lay statements of viewing and x-raying multiple dead bodies that had been pulled from a helicopter crash that occurred during his active service. The examiner must provide the rationale for all proffered opinions. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. 5. After completing any additional notification or development deemed necessary, the Veteran's claims should be readjudicated. If the claims remain denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and afforded a reasonable opportunity for response. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters 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. §§ 5109B, 7112 (2012). _________________________________________________ A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (2012), 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) (2017).