Citation Nr: 18153874 Decision Date: 11/28/18 Archive Date: 11/28/18 DOCKET NO. 16-50 928 DATE: November 28, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for service-connected scar due to a gunshot wound to the left leg is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the U.S. Army from January 1975 to February 1977. The record reflects that the Veteran is currently in prison. Therefore, for the issues remanded, the Regional Office should attempt to schedule in-prison examinations. 1. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is remanded. The Veteran seeks service connection for PTSD. The record reflects a current diagnosis for PTSD. As to an in-service stressor, the Veteran links his PTSD to the in-service gunshot wound he sustained to the left leg. As the Veteran is already service connected for residuals of this gunshot wound, this in-service stressor is already verified. However, in his June 2014 notice of disagreement, the Veteran stated that getting shot is a traumatic experience as well as “seeing peoples’ guts blasted all over” him. He also stated that his friend “being run over with a traced 175mm gun is bad.” He stated that it is not his childhood or auto accident [that caused his PTSD.] He stated that it was the military and the things he did [in the military] that gave him PTSD. Additionally, he stated that these events caused his car accident that killed four people. He stated that he was a “wrecked mess” when he got out of the Army and became a drunk and addict because of it. With regard to the Veteran’s claimed stressors other than the gunshot wound, these stressors have not been corroborated. When establishing service connection for PTSD, the stressor must be supported by credible supporting evidence that the stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). In this regard, the Board notes that the Veteran’s statements alone are not sufficient to establish an in-service stressor but must be corroborated by credible supporting evidence. See Dizoglio v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 163, 166 (1996); accord Moreau v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 389, 394-95 (1996); see also Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 146-147 (1997). 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) explicitly provides for those circumstances where a veteran’s lay statements alone are sufficient to establish a stressor. Those provisions apply where a Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD during service, engaged in combat, the stressor is related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity, the Veteran was a prisoner of war, or the stressor is based on in-service personal assault. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(1-5). Here, the record does not support that any of these scenarios apply to the Veteran. While the Veteran was shot in the leg during service, the record does not support, nor has he alleged, that he participated in combat. The November 1975 service treatment record referring to the gunshot wound to the left leg indicates that the Veteran was shot while trying to break up a fight. As the Veteran does not meet any of the criteria for which lay statements alone are sufficient to establish a stressor, his additional stressors must be corroborated. Therefore, on remand, the RO should take appropriate steps to attempt to corroborate the Veteran’s claimed in-service stressors other than the left leg gunshot wound. The remaining issue is a nexus. The Veteran underwent an initial PTSD VA examination in May 2014. The examiner opined that based on the information provided by the Veteran during the exam, his PTSD symptoms seem to be most related primarily to his childhood history of abuse and to the multiple-fatality motor vehicle accident for which he went to prison. The examiner stated that there was no evidence that the gunshot injury to the fatty tissue on his lower leg was a “significant and enduring traumatic stressor.” The Board does not find this opinion adequate. Initially, the Board notes that “seems to be” does not rise to the standard of “at least as likely as not.” Moreover, VA regulations do not require that the in-service stressor be the sole cause of a veteran’s PTSD. As such, the rationale that there are additional causes of the Veteran’s PTSD is also not sufficient. Additionally, the examiner did not consider the Veteran’s lay statements linking his PTSD to the gunshot wound. As such, remand is necessary for an adequate nexus opinion, which must take into consideration all verified stressors as well as the Veteran’s lay statements. 2. Entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for service-connected scar due to a gunshot wound to the left leg is remanded. The Board finds that remand is necessary to afford the Veteran a VA examination specifically for scars. The Veteran underwent a VA examination for muscle conditions in May 2014. While the examiner provided measurements of the Veteran’s scar to the left leg, there are additional rating criteria for scars that were not addressed in this Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ), such as whether the scar is painful and or unstable. As such, remand is necessary for an examination in accordance with the current DBQ for scars. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and request detailed information to permit verification of his claimed PTSD stressors other than the gunshot wound to the left leg. Request that he identify additional sources of information which may serve to corroborate the stressor events. Notify the Veteran that he may provide “buddy” statements or other corroborating evidence to support the occurrence of the in-service stressors. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for a new in-prison VA examination with an appropriate examiner to assess the nature and etiology of his PTSD. For each claim remanded, the claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the reviewing examiner, and the examiner should indicate in the report that the claims file was reviewed. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to attest to observable symptoms, such as pain. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the Veteran’s reports of symptomatology, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. As to the Veteran’s claim for service connection for PTSD, for any verified stressor(s), the examiner is asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s PTSD is due to any such verified stressor(s). The Board notes that the stressor of the left leg gunshot wound is already verified. Importantly, the examiner must consider the Veteran’s lay statements linking his PTSD to any verified stressors. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an in-prison VA examination to assess the current nature and severity of his left leg scar due to the gunshot wound. The examiner must provide all information required for rating purposes. 4. After completing the above actions, readjudicate the claims on appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the Veteran should be furnished an appropriate Supplemental Statement of the Case and be provided an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, as appropriate. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Smith, Associate Counsel