Citation Nr: 18155975
Decision Date: 12/06/18	Archive Date: 12/06/18

DOCKET NO. 11-14 667
DATE:	December 6, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service-connection for major depressive disorder claimed as depression, nervousness, and anxiety is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty for training from September 1981 to November 1981.
This matter is on appeal from an October 2010 rating decision for major depressive disorder claimed as depression, nervousness, and anxiety. The Board remanded this matter in April 2014 for a VA examination and opinion.
A hearing was held in November 2011 before the undersigned Judge; a transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file.
The Veteran asserts that his condition arose during his time in service, during basic training. Upon review of the September 2017 VA examination, the Board finds that additional clarification of opinion is necessary.
The Board remanded this appeal in December 2016 for additional development and for a VA examination to determine the nature, extent and etiology of the Veteran’s diagnosed condition. Both the remand and examination instructions asked the examiner’s opinion to reflect consideration of the Veteran’s documented medical history, assertions and all lay evidence. The instructions also ask the examiner:
“At the least, the examiner must specifically note the November 2011 hearing transcript, notations in the Veteran’s service personnel records revealing findings of nervousness sufficient to require referral to the trainee discharge program, the 2002 statement of Dr. S.K., MD and 2012 statement of T.L., LCSW.”
While the September 2017 VA opinion does discuss the Veteran’s experience in active service and evaluations in his service personnel records, the opinion has no mention or discussion of the November 2011 hearing transcript, the July 2002 statement of Dr. S.K., MD and the January 2012 statement of T.L., LCSW, and does not provide any rationale on why these statements were not considered. As such, the Board finds this opinion inadequate, and remand necessary for clarification.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1. Obtain and associate with the claims file all updated treatment records.
2. Return the claims file to the VA examiner who conducted the September 2017 examination, if available, for clarification and additional opinions. If that examiner is not available, the claims file should be provided to another physician to obtain the requested opinion. After review of the claims file, the examiner is asked to respond to the following:
(a.) Specifically address the November 2011 hearing transcript, the July 2002 statement of Dr. S.K., MD and the January 2012 statement of T.L., LCSW, and evaluate if these statements are sufficient for reconsideration of the opinion.
(b.) The examiner is also advised that the Veteran is competent to report in-service events and treatment, and his symptoms and history, and such reports and assertions must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinions. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports, the examiner must provide a reason for doing so.
A complete rationale for all opinions expressed should be provided.
3. Thereafter, readjudicate the claim. If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and be afforded the opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for appellate review, if in order.

 
MICHAEL LANE
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	J. Yang, Law Clerk