Citation Nr: 18146700 Decision Date: 10/31/18 Archive Date: 10/31/18 DOCKET NO. 15-33 169 DATE: November 1, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1969 to May 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Cleveland, Ohio. In February 2018, the Veteran appeared for a videoconference hearing before the undersigned. A transcript of that proceeding has been associated with the record. The Board recognizes that several other issues stemming from a December 2015 rating decision by the RO are currently pending on appeal before the Board. To that extent, the Board notes that on August 16, 2018, the Federal Circuit ordered the appeal of Procopio v. Wilkie, No. 17-1821 (U.S. Fed. Cir.). The order stated that the questions before the Federal Circuit include the following: “Does the phrase ‘served in the Republic of Vietnam’ in 38 U.S.C. § 1116 unambiguously include service in offshore waters within the legally recognized territorial limits of the Republic of Vietnam, regardless of whether such service included presence on or within the landmass of the Republic of Vietnam?” As of the date of this decision, Procopio is pending. As the other issues currently pending before the Board may be affected by the resolution of Procopio, the Board will “stay” or postpone action on those matters, and they will be addressed in a later Board decision. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. A review of the record reflects that further development of this claim is necessary prior to appellate consideration. The Veteran was provided with a VA psychiatric examination in May 2013. Report of the May 2013 VA examination reflects, in pertinent part, a diagnosis of depressive disorder, not otherwise specified. The Veteran reported nightmares “ever since [he] was in the [military]... involv[ing] a typhoon” that resulted in the U.S.S. Gurke almost capsizing. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s symptoms do not meet the diagnostic criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) criteria. He further opined that the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder is likely related to his current physical condition, as well as the loss of his daughter nearly two decades ago. First, the May 2013 VA examiner’s opinion may be based on an inaccurate factual premise. See Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97, 107 (2012) (“If the opinion is based on an inaccurate factual premise, then it is correct to discount it entirely” (citations omitted)). For instance, the examiner indicated that the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder was related to his current physical condition, as well as the loss of his daughter nearly two decades ago. However, the Veteran’s February 2018 hearing testimony reflects, in pertinent part, that he experienced symptoms of depression since service, but that he did not seek treatment for it until after his daughter’s death. It is not clear whether this evidence would change the examiner’s opinion, but given that he apparently did not consider it, the Board finds a remand is necessary. See generally Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39 (2007). Second, the examiner noted that the Veteran does not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD. Subsequent medical treatment records, however, reflect a diagnosis of PTSD, albeit it is unclear whether such diagnosis was provided based on DSM criteria. See Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185, 191 (1995) (emphasizing the Board’s duty to return an inadequate examination report “if further evidence or clarification of the evidence... is essential for a proper appellate decision”). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all relevant outstanding post-service medical treatment records from VA treatment facilities. 2. Make an additional attempt to corroborate the Veteran’s alleged in-service stressor(s), including affording the Veteran an opportunity to provide any additional information regarding his claimed in-service stressor(s), to include specific names, dates, and locations. If the claimed PTSD stressors cannot be corroborated, issue a formal finding and notify the Veteran and his representative of such finding. 3. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for VA examination by an appropriate medical professional to prepare an opinion with respect to the nature and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disorder. The electronic claims file must be made accessible to the examiner for review, and such review should be noted in the examination report. Following a review of the claims file and medical history and examination of the Veteran, the VA examiner must offer an opinion as to the following: (a.) Does the Veteran have an acquired psychiatric disorder? (b.) If so, the examiner should identify the specific disorder (other than PTSD) and opine whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that any psychiatric disorder (other than PTSD) is caused by or a result of the Veteran’s military service. (c.) If PTSD is diagnosed, the examiner should identify the corroborated stressor(s), if applicable, that provide(s) the basis for the diagnosis, and whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that such disorder is caused by or a result of the Veteran’s military service. Any opinion rendered should reflect consideration of the Veteran’s statements regarding ongoing symptomatology since service. The examiner must provide a rationale for all opinions provided. If an opinion cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner should provide an explanation as to why this is so and note what, (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be made. BARBARA B. COPELAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Kalolwala, Associate Counsel