Citation Nr: 18157915 Decision Date: 12/14/18 Archive Date: 12/13/18 DOCKET NO. 10-13 716 DATE: December 14, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a psychiatric disorder, to include major depressive disorder (MDD), MDD with psychotic features, anxiety, cyclothymia, delusional disorder, unspecified personality disorder, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 2001 to June 2003. He also had a period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from August 1998 to February 1999. This matter is on appeal of a February 2009 rating decision. In October 2012, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) during a video conference Board. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The Board remanded the appeal for further development in March 2013, April 2017 and November 2017. Regrettably, yet another remand is necessary as the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) has not substantially complied with the prior remand directives. As discussed by the Board in the April 2017 and November 2017 remands, an earlier April 2015 VA examination as well as a January 2016 VA opinion and June 2017 addendum opinion are inadequate for adjudication of the appeal. Specifically, the VA examiner and the psychologist providing the January 2016 and June 2017 opinions did not address evidence favorable to the Veteran or based their opinions on inaccurate facts or on the lack of contemporary medical treatment records. In November 2017, the Board remanded the claim so that the Veteran could be afforded another VA psychiatric examination by an appropriate medical professional other than the VA psychologist who conducted the April 2015 examination or the VA psychologist who provided the January 2016 and June 2017 opinions to obtain another opinion based on an accurate history of the Veteran’s disability. A VA Compensation and Pension Exam Inquiry, shows a VA psychiatric examination request was initiated on January 10, 2018. A VA notation, dated January 11, 2018, indicates the Veteran was called 3 times at 3 different numbers that day and voicemails left at 2 of the numbers. The notation does not indicate what the voicemails regarded. The RO consequently readjudicated the claim based on the existing evidence of record, and, in an August 2018 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), continued to deny entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, specifically noting the Veteran failed to appear for the VA psychiatric examination scheduled on January 11, 2018. The record does not contain any letter or other document reflecting that the Veteran was notified of a scheduled examination in January 2018. Additionally, the Board notes that the Veteran’s representative, in an October 2018 Appellate Brief, has argued that the Veteran was not properly notified of the scheduled examination and should be provided another opportunity to undergo a VA examination. As it is unclear whether the Veteran was properly notified of the examination, it must be rescheduled and the Veteran notified of the examination date and the consequences of failing without good cause to report for a scheduled VA examination, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. Finally, while the appeal is in remand status, all of the Veteran’s contemporaneous and relevant outstanding treatment records should also be obtained and associated with the claims file. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and afford him the opportunity to identify or submit any additional pertinent evidence in support of his claim. Based on his response, attempt to procure copies of all records which have not previously been obtained from identified treatment sources. 2. Obtain any updated VA treatment records from November 2017 to the present. 3. After associating the above records, if any, with the electronic claims file, schedule the Veteran for a VA psychiatric examination by an appropriate medical professional other than the VA psychologist who conducted the April 2015 examination or the VA psychologist who provided opinions in January 2016 and June 2017, to determine the current nature and etiology of any psychiatric disorder, to include diagnosed MDD, MDD with psychosis, delusional disorder, anxiety, cyclothymia, schizophrenia, unspecified personality disorder or bipolar disorder, found to be present. Notify the Veteran that it is his responsibility to report for the examination and to cooperate in the development of the claim and that the consequences for failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158, 3.655. In the event that the Veteran does not report for the scheduled examination, documentation showing that he was properly notified of the examination must be associated with the record. Based on review of all the evidence of record, and the Veteran’s elicited history, the examiner is to respond to the following: a.) Does the Veteran have a current psychiatric diagnosis? b.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that any currently or previously diagnosed psychiatric disorder (to include diagnosed MDD, MDD with psychosis, delusional disorder, anxiety, cyclothymia, schizophrenia, unspecified personality disorder or bipolar disorder) had its onset in service or is otherwise related to his active service, or any incident therein? A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided that addresses the Veteran’s history of depression since service and treatment in 2004, as well as VA treatment records noting the Veteran’s earlier use of antidepressants and of subsequent occurrences that accentuated his depression. If the examiner cannot provide a requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the examiner must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. The examiner must indicate whether there was any further need for information or testing necessary to make a determination. Additionally, the examiner must indicate whether any opinion could not be rendered due to limitations of knowledge in the medical community at large and not those of the particular examiner. M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. Wells-Green