Citation Nr: 18147697 Decision Date: 11/05/18 Archive Date: 11/05/18 DOCKET NO. 16-35 814 DATE: November 5, 2018 REMANDED Whether new and material evidence was received to reopen entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disorder is remanded. Whether new and material evidence was received to reopen entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an ear disorder, other than the service-connected tinnitus, related to in-service ear drum puncture is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran’s claims are not ready for the Board’s review. The Regional Office (RO) attempted to schedule VA examinations for each and the Veteran did not appear. A review of the record reveals that the Veteran moved many times during the course of the appeal. In July 2016, he reported moving fifteen times in the prior ten years. In August 2018, after the issues on appeal were certified to the Board, a Decision Review Officer emailed the Veteran indicating the need for VA to obtain a current address for scheduling of VA examinations. He responded in September 2018 with an address and phone number. The record then shows the RO proceeded to issue a Deferred Rating Decision in September 2018, which ordered the scheduling of ankle, ear/ENT, shoulder and PTSD examinations. As this development is underway, the Board finds the matters on appeal are not ready for adjudication and must be remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the ankle, ear/ENT, shoulder and PTSD examinations referenced in the September 2018 Deferred Rating Decision. This development should include scheduling the Veteran for examinations by an appropriate clinician(s) to determine the nature and etiology of any right shoulder, right ankle, psychiatric or ear disorders (other than the already service-connected tinnitus) present at any time during the pendency of these claims. Once the current diagnosis for each claimed disability is confirmed, the examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including the Veteran’s confirmed involvement in an IED explosion, and his confirmed combat service, as is evidence by his receipt of a Combat Action Badge and Purple Heart Medal. Should any psychosis or arthritis be diagnosed, the examiner should opine whether it at least as likely as not (1) began during active service, (2) manifested within one year after discharge from service, or (3) was noted during service with continuity of the same symptomatology since service. With regard to the PTSD claim, the examiner should note the Veteran’s confirmed combat service, and also observe that the Veteran’s PTSD claim is based on both combat and military sexual assault. If the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD, the examiner must explain how the diagnostic criteria are met and opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to the Veteran’s conceded in-service combat stressors, or whether it is at least as likely as not related to an in-service military sexual assault. With regard to the military sexual assault, the examiner must consider the Veteran’s lay statements, as well as the corroborating lay statements submitted on his behalf by fellow soldiers in December 2013. If any acquired psychiatric disorders other than PTSD are diagnosed, the examiner must opine whether each diagnosed disorder is at least as likely as not related to the in-service combat experiences or military sexual assault. The examiner(s) should provide reasons for the opinions. If any examiner is unable to provide an opinion without resort to speculation, the examiner should state whether the inability is due to the limits of the examiner’s knowledge, the limits of medical knowledge in general, or that there is additional evidence that would permit the needed opinion to be provided. 2. After completing the above actions, to include any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraph, the Veteran’s claims should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any claim remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. N. RIPPEL Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Adamson, Counsel