Citation Nr: 18159249 Decision Date: 12/18/18 Archive Date: 12/18/18 DOCKET NO. 12-33 879 DATE: December 18, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1978 to August 1982. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability is remanded. The Board is required to enforce compliance with its prior remand orders. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). To help decide whether the Veteran has a current acquired psychiatric disorder which was caused or aggravated by her active duty service, the AOJ remanded this case for further development in April 2014, June 2017, and, most recently, in March 2018. As the Board explained in its most recent remand, the correspondence and other documents in the electronic claims file suggested that the Veteran may not have been notified of an earlier request to schedule a VA mental health examination. For this reason, the Board remanded the case with instructions to attempt to schedule the examination. According to the March 2018 remand orders, “In the event the Veteran does not report for the scheduled examination, documentation must be obtained and added to the file which shows that notice scheduling the examination was actually sent to the last known address. It must also be indicated whether any notice that was sent was returned as undeliverable.” In September 2018, the AOJ sent a request to the Veteran’s local VA Medical Center (VAMC) to schedule the examination. The claims file includes a computer screen image designated “exam details” which indicates that an employee of the VAMC mailed a letter to the Veteran on September 14, 2018, but the examination request was cancelled on October 1, 2018 after the Veteran failed to respond to the letter and to multiple attempts to contact her via telephone. Unfortunately, the claims file does not include a copy of the notice letter. Nor did the AOJ obtain any other “documentation . . . which shows that notice scheduling the examination was actually sent to the [Veteran’s] last known address.” Without a copy of the notice letter or at least a note identifying the address to which the letter was mailed, there is no way for the Board to determine whether the AOJ provided adequate notice to the Veteran. The AOJ also neglected to indicate “whether any notice that was sent was returned as undeliverable” as required by paragraph three of the March 2018 remand orders. Although the Board regrets the need for further delay, these circumstances require another remand to attempt to arrange the previously requested examination. See Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. On remand, the AOJ should document its efforts to ensure that notice of the time and place of the new examination reaches the Veteran at her current address. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain copies of any outstanding VA treatment records from October 2018 to the present and associate them with the claims file. 2. After completing the foregoing directive and adding any pertinent records to the appellant's file, schedule her for a VA psychiatric examination with a medical examiner who has not previously examined her. The Veteran's VBMS and Virtual VA files along with a copy of this remand, must be made available to the examiner. After the examination and a review of the record, the examiner is asked to provide the following opinions: (a) Identify all the Veteran’s current psychiatric diagnoses. (b) If the Veteran is diagnosed with any psychiatric disorder, provide an opinion addressing whether it is at least as likely as not due to her military service, specifically to include her reported in-service sexual assault. The Veteran’s lay statements regarding the assault should be considered in formulating the requested opinion. The examiner must provide a rationale for all opinions expressed. If any requested opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge, i.e., no one could respond given medical science and the known facts, or by a deficiency in the record or in the expertise of the examiner, i.e., additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the knowledge or training needed to provide the requested opinion. 3. The Veteran is to be notified that it is her responsibility to report for the examination and to cooperate with the development 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 MUST BE OBTAINED AND ADDED TO THE FILE WHICH SHOWS THAT NOTICE SCHEDULING THE EXAMINATION WAS ACTUALLY SENT TO THE VETERAN’S LAST KNOWN ADDRESS. IT MUST ALSO BE INDICATED WHETHER ANY NOTICE THAT WAS SENT WAS RETURNED AS UNDERLIVERABLE. 4. After the requested development has been completed, the AOJ should review the claims file to ensure compliance with the directives of this remand. If the requested examination report and opinion is deficient in any manner, the AOJ must implement corrective procedures at once. DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Nye, Associate Counsel