Citation Nr: 19166323 Decision Date: 08/27/19 Archive Date: 08/27/19 DOCKET NO. 18-03 042 DATE: August 27, 2019 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. The issue of entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder is remanded. The issue of entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. The issue of entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1972 to April 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from January 2014 and March 2017 rating decisions of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Service connection for a back disability is remanded. An August 2013 correspondence shows that the Veteran reported receiving disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA). A January 2012 Residual Functional Capacity Questionnaire, which appears to have been completed pursuant to his claim for SSA benefits, discussed the Veteran’s back pain, anxiety, and depression. As records from the Veteran’s SSA claim may be relevant to his service connection claims, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to request the Veteran’s complete file from SSA. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b); Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317, 321-23 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 2. Service connection for a psychiatric disorder is remanded. The Veteran underwent a VA mental health examination in September 2017, during which he reported multiple in-service stressors, including being subjected to verbal abuse and racism and enduring harsh weather and extreme conditions during a temporary duty assignment in Washington. The examiner noted that the examination request explicitly stated that the only stressor that should be considered was a parachute accident and opined that it was less likely than not that a current psychiatric disorder was related to an in-service parachute accident. Because the examiner did not address any of the Veteran’s other alleged in-service stressors, the Board finds that the Veteran should receive another VA mental health examination, and another opinion should be obtained. 3. Service connection for hypertension is remanded. The Veteran asserts that his hypertension was caused by his anxiety. Accordingly, the claim for service connection for hypertension is inextricably intertwined with service connection claim for a psychiatric disorder. Therefore, it is remanded for contemporaneous adjudication. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). 4. Service connection for prostate cancer is remanded. Service treatment records show that the Veteran was treated for hematuria in March 1974. In a July 2019 written statement, the Veteran’s attorney requested that the service connection claim for prostate cancer be remanded in order to obtain a medical opinion with respect to whether the Veteran’s prostate cancer is related to his in-service treatment for hematuria. Accordingly, the claim is remanded for a VA medical opinion. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 78, 81 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request all records from SSA pertaining to the Veteran’s claim for disability benefits, including all medical records relied upon concerning that claim. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination pursuant to his claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder. After an examination and review of the claims file, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any current psychiatric disorder was incurred in or caused by service. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. 3. Provide the claims file to an appropriate examiner in order to obtain an opinion with respect to the Veteran’s claim for service connection for prostate cancer. If an examination is deemed necessary to respond to the question presented, one should be scheduled. After a review of the claims file, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s prostate cancer is related to his March 1974 treatment for hematuria or was otherwise related to service. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Banister, Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.