Citation Nr: 18154982 Decision Date: 12/03/18 Archive Date: 12/03/18 DOCKET NO. 09-23 011A DATE: December 3, 2018 ORDER New and material evidence having been received, the claim of entitlement to service connection for major depressive disorder, secondary to chronic otitis media with eustachian tube dysfunction is reopened. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for major depressive disorder secondary to chronic otitis media with eustachian tube dysfunction is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. An unappealed June 2002 rating decision denying service connection for depressive disorder is final. 2. The additional evidence received since the June 2002 rating decision is both new and material in that it is not redundant or cumulative of the evidence on record at the time of the rating decision. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for major depressive disorder, secondary to chronic otitis media with eustachian tube dysfunction have been met. 38 U.S.C § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1970 until December 1972. This appeal is before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) from a rating decision before the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Chicago, Illinois. A hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in June 2018. At the time of the June 2002 rating decision, the evidence related to major depressive disorder was comprised of lay statements from the Veteran as well as a VA examination from April 2002 and other medical treatment records. In June 2002, the RO issued a rating decision denying service connection for major depressive disorder, secondary to chronic otitis media with eustachian tube dysfunction. The RO denied the claim by concluding that the Veteran’s depression neither occurred in nor was caused by service. Secondary service connection for this issue was not discussed in this rating decision. Since the June 2002 rating decision, the Veteran has submitted additional evidence, both medical records and lay statements, pertaining to his depression, chronic ear condition, and the conditions’ claimed relatedness. For evidence to be material, it must relate to an unestablished fact necessary to the substantive claim. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 112 (2010). It must also be neither cumulative or redundant of the evidence present at the time of the previous final decision. Here, the Veteran’s newly submitted evidence pertains to whether the major depressive disorder is related to the chronic otitis media with eustachian tube dysfunction. Specifically, the Veteran has introduced statements supporting the claim that the two conditions here are related and deserve further consideration for secondary service connection. New medical records not considered in the June 2002 rating decision have also been submitted, including more recent VA examinations. A hearing was also held in June 2018. This evidence is new because it had not been previously submitted to agency decisionmakers. The same evidence is material because it is neither cumulative or redundant of that evidence on record at the time of the June 2002 rating decision. Therefore, the claim is reopened. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran contends that his major depressive disorder is caused or aggravated by his service-connected chronic otitis media with eustachian tube disorder. The Board notes that the Veteran has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder since a 2002 VA examination. Since the June 2002 rating decision denying service connection for depression, the Veteran has submitted lay statements in support of his own claim. These statements point to a correlation between the chronic ear pain, resulting from the service-connected condition, and the Veteran’s depression. The Veteran has also submitted a statement from a social worker familiar with the Veteran’s conditions. Her statement reports similar facts regarding the Veteran’s mental state and possible connection to the Veteran’s ear condition. She also stated that she blieved that the Veteran’s depression has continued to worsen. In considering these statements, the Board finds the present evidence of record insufficient to determine whether the Veteran’s depressive disorder should be secondarily service connected to his chronic ear condition. Ultimately, the determination of secondary service connection requires an opinion from a qualified clinician. Such an opinion by a VA examiner is not present in the record. The Board requires additional information to decide the issue of entitlement to service connection for the Veteran’s major depressive disorder. This is because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran’s depressive disorder is proximately due to, or aggravated by his service-connected ear condition. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any major depressive disorder. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including chronic otitis media with eustachian tube dysfunction. 2. For secondary service connection the examiner must also opine whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s depressive disorder is (1) proximately due to his service-connected disability, or (2) aggravated beyond its natural progression by his service-connected disability. Aggravation is defined as a permanent worsening beyond the natural progression of the disease or disability. If aggravation is found, to the extent possible, the examiner should identify the clinical signs, symptoms, and manifestations of any such disorder which establish: (1) the degree of severity before the onset of aggravation of the chronic otitis media with eustachian tube disorder; and (2) the degree of severity at the onset of aggravation of this condition. 3. Once this is completed, the issue on appeal should be readjudicated. If the benefit sought on appeal is denied, issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) to the Veteran and his representative. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Hebert, Law Clerk