Citation Nr: 18141341 Decision Date: 10/10/18 Archive Date: 10/10/18 DOCKET NO. 09-41 762 DATE: October 10, 2018 ORDER The issue of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a mood disorder, is dismissed as moot. REMANDED The issue of an effective date prior to December 7, 2015, for the grant of service connection for PTSD with major depressive disorder (MDD) and episodic psychosis is remanded. The issue of entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C is remanded. REFERRED In an October 2012 Statement in Support of Claim the Veteran’s spouse payee requested to be removed as his fiduciary. This issue is referred to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for appropriate action. FINDING OF FACT Service connection for the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorders, including PTSD, MDD, and episodic psychosis, was granted in an October 2017 rating decision. CONCLUSION OF LAW The appeal of the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and a mood disorder, is moot by an October 2017 rating decision granting service connection for PTSD, MDD, and episodic psychosis, and there remains no matter in controversy over which the Board has jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105(d)(5) (2012). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the U.S. Army from September 1973 to September 1975. In May 2010, the Veteran was afforded a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge on the issue of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. A hearing transcript is in the record. Entitlement ot service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and a mood disorder. In April 2014, the Board denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and a mood disorder, after reconsidering a January 1992 claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). The Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a March 2016 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), the case was remanded to the Board for the Board to determine whether the Veteran had filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the April 2014 Board decision. By letter dated October 11, 2016, the Board advised the Veteran that it had determined that a timely motion for reconsideration had not been filed. The Veteran was advised that he had 120 days from the date of the letter to appeal the Board’s April 2014 decision. By telefaxed transmission received on November 30, 2016, the Veteran submitted a Supplemental Claim for Compensation (VA Form 21-526b) to the RO seeking service connection for a “Mental Health condition to include PTSD, Depression, and Psychosis.” (check the court’s website) The Veteran noted that the Board’s denial of that issue was on appeal to the Court. Although the RO first denied reopening the issues in a June 2017 rating decision, it granted service connection for PTSD, MDD, and episodic psychosis in an October 2017 rating decision. The RO assigned the disability a 100 percent evaluation effective December 7, 2015, as it was noted the date that the RO received the Veteran’s “intent to file.” In a May 2018 JMR, the Court vacated the Board’s April 2014 denial of service connection and remanded the appeal to the Board. As the RO granted service connection for the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorders, including PTSD, MDD, and episodic psychosis, there remains no issue on which the Board could grant the Veteran relief. The entire benefit which he sought in his appeal (entitlement to service connection) was granted. Therefore, the issue of service connection before the Board is moot and the appeal is dismissed. The issue of whether an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection remains on appeal and is remanded below. See generally Grantham v. Brown, 114 F. 3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that a separate notice of disagreement must be filed to initiate appellate review of “downstream” elements such as the disability rating or effective date assigned). REASONS FOR REMAND 1. The issue of an effective date prior to December 7, 2015, for the grant of service connection for PTSD with MDD and episodic psychosis is remanded. 2. The issue of entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C is remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Reasons for the remand: In October 2017, the Veteran submitted a notice of disagreement (NOD) with the assigned effective date of the grant of service connection for PTSD with MDD and episodic psychosis. A statement of the case (SOC) addressing the NOD has not been issued to him. The Court has directed that where a veteran has submitted a timely NOD with an adverse decision and the AOJ has not subsequently issued an SOC addressing the issue, the Board should remand the issue to the AOJ for preparation of an SOC. Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240 241 (1999). Remand of the issue of service connection for hepatitis C is necessary to afford the Veteran a VA examination and to obtain VA medical opinions. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). He has reported treatment by a private physician for his hepatitis C so remand is also necessary to attempt to obtain treatment records. 2. Issue an SOC to the Veteran and his accredited representative which addresses the effective date of the grant of service connection for PTSD with MDD and episodic psychosis. The Veteran should be given the appropriate opportunity to respond to the SOC. 3. Advise the Veteran that he may submit any additional medical and non-medical evidence relating to his hepatitis C that is not already in VA’s possession. Specifically request authorization to obtain treatment records from the private physician treating the Veteran for hepatitis C. 4. AFTER THE ADDITION OF ANY OF THE ABOVE RECORDS TO THE FILE, OR DOCUMENTING THEIR UNAVAILABILITY, schedule the Veteran for a VA hepatitis examination to obtain an opinion as to the nature and etiology of his hepatitis C. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings reported in detail. All relevant medical records must be made available to the examiner for review of pertinent documents. The examination report should specifically state that such a review was conducted. The examiner must provide a comprehensive explanation for all opinions provided. The examiner should address the following: (a.) Whether hepatitis C was caused by any in service injury, disease, disorder, or event, or in any way originated during service. (b.) Whether hepatitis C was caused by the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD with MDD and episodic psychosis. (c.) Whether hepatitis C was aggravated by the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD with MDD and episodic psychosis. The examiner’s attention is drawn to the following: *September 2003 VA treatment record indicating a recent diagnosis of hepatitis C and a history of injection drug use. VBMS Entry 8/11/2008, p. 1. 5. Readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran should be provided a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). An appropriate period should be allowed for response before the case is returned to the Board. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. E. Miller, Associate Counsel