Citation Nr: 18140138 Decision Date: 10/02/18 Archive Date: 10/02/18 DOCKET NO. 16-15 527A DATE: October 2, 2018 ORDER New and material evidence has been received to reopen the previously denied claim for service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and to this extent only, the appeal is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s claim for service connection for PTSD was last denied in a March 2011 rating decision that was not timely appealed, nor was any new and material evidence submitted within the appeal period; that decision is final. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to reopen the claim for service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from January 1971 to January 1973. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the previously denied claim for service connection for PTSD Service connection for PTSD was denied in a March 2011 rating decision on the basis that there was no evidence that the Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD. The Veteran did not submit a timely notice of disagreement or new and material evidence during the appeal period, and the decision became final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(b), 20.302, 20.1103 (2018). Generally, if a claim of entitlement to service connection has been previously denied and that decision became final, the claim can be reopened and reconsidered only if new and material evidence is presented with respect to that claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2018). New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to VA. Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2018). New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. Id. The Court has held that the law should be interpreted to enable reopening of a claim, rather than to preclude it. See Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). The evidence received since the March 2011 rating decision includes evidence that is both new and material to the claim. For example, an October 2014 evaluation report and May 2015 letter from Dr. Uzzell notes a diagnosis of PTSD. This new evidence addresses the reason for the previous denial; that is, a current disability, and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. The credibility of this evidence is presumed for purposes of reopening the claim. See Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). Accordingly, the claim is reopened and will be considered on the merits. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is remanded. Reopening the claim does not end the matter; rather, the claim must now be addressed on the merits. However, the Board finds that additional development is needed. The evidence indicates there may be outstanding relevant VA treatment records. VA treatment records from October 22, 2014 and April 1, 2015 indicate that the Veteran was to return for follow up appointments in May 2015 and on April 28, 2015. VA treatment records subsequent to April 13, 2015 have not been associated with the claims file. Additionally, the April 2016 Statement of the Case notes that VA treatment records dated through May 8, 2015 had been reviewed. A remand to obtain the records is required. The record also indicates that there are outstanding private treatment records. The May 2015 letter from Dr. Uzzell indicates that the Veteran had been undergoing treatment since October 2014. The record does not contain any treatment notes from Dr. Uzzell. On remand the Veteran should be afforded another opportunity to submit or authorize VA to obtain on his behalf treatment records from Dr. Uzzell. Finally, if additional mental health treatment records are received, an addendum opinion should be obtained to address that evidence. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide the names and addresses of all medical care providers who have recently treated him for his PTSD, to include Dr. Uzzell. After securing any necessary releases, request any relevant records identified. In addition, obtain updated VA treatment records dated since April 13, 2015. If any requested records are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified of such. 2. After the above is completed to the extent possible, if and only if additional mental health treatment records are received, forward the claims file to a VA clinician to obtain an addendum opinion. If an examination is deemed necessary to respond to the questions presented, one should be scheduled. Following review of the claims file, the clinician should opine: (a.) Whether the Veteran meets the diagnostic criteria for PTSD. Please explain why or why not. (b.) If the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD, the examiner should indicate the stressor(s) upon which the diagnosis is based. (c.) If there is a diagnosis of any psychiatric condition other than PTSD documented in the treatment records, state whether it is at least as likely as not that the condition arose during service or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s military service, to include his service in the Republic of Vietnam. A complete rationale for all opinions expressed should be provided. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Anderson