Citation Nr: 20003645 Decision Date: 01/16/20 Archive Date: 01/15/20 DOCKET NO. 18-44 409 DATE: January 16, 2020 REMANDED Service connection for a psychiatric disorder (claimed as mood disorder and major depressive disorder) is remanded. Service connection for a heart disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1985 to February 1988. The case is on appeal from rating decisions issued in July and August 2017. The July 2017 rating decision denied service connection for a psychiatric disorder; and the August 2017 rating decision denied service connection for heart murmur. The Board notes that relevant VA medical records have been associated with the claims file since the August 2018 statement(s) of the case. This evidence will be addressed by the agency of original jurisdiction while the case is on remand. 1. Service connection for a psychiatric disorder. In a rating decision dated in July 2017, the RO denied service connection for a psychiatric disorder. In May 2018, the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement with that decision. In August 2018, the RO issue a statement of the case to the Veteran; however, it was not properly addressed. See Rios v. Nicholson, 490 F.3d 928, 933 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Rios I) (regarding mailbox rule presumptions). In a letter to the Veteran dated October 9, 2018, the RO acknowledged that it had been mailing its correspondence to the Veteran to an incorrect address, and re-sent some of the prior mailings to the Veteran, but it did not re-send the improperly addressed statement of the case. Remand for re-issuance of a statement of the case on the issue of service connection for a psychiatric disorder is warranted. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.31. 2. Service connection for heart disorder. The Veteran seeks service connection for a heart problem, claimed as murmur. In his September 2018 substantive appeal (VA Form 9) the Veteran averred that a heart murmur was discovered during service and he was told not to participate in physical training after the diagnosis. See also May 2019 clarification from the Veteran’s representative. STRs contain evidence of a heart problem. See STRs dated in 1985, which advise of lightheadedness, dizziness, “pvc’s” and murmur; and include the diagnosis “r/o cad.” There is also post-service evidence of a heart disorder. See, e.g., VA medical records dated in October 2015, which advise of abnormal EKG, bradycardia, and tachycardia. See also VA medical records dated in December 2015 and August 2017, which show that the Veteran takes Metoprolol Tartrate; Carvedilol, and other prescribed prophylactics for heart disease. Remand for a VA examination is warranted. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Re-issue a statement of the case to the Veteran on the issue of service connection for a psychiatric disorder and inform the Veteran that he must complete and return the enclosed VA Form 9 within 60 days in order to perfect an appeal on the issue of service connection service connection for a psychiatric disorder. If the appeal is perfected, certify this matter to the Board. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination regarding the issue of service connection for a heart disorder. In conducting the examination, the examiner must (a.) review the claims file; physically examine the Veteran; discuss the Veteran’s in-service experiences and current complaints with the Veteran; and document the Veteran’s assertions in the examination report. (b.) conduct associated diagnostic testing, and report all findings reported in detail; and then (c.) opine, for each current heart disorder, as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., at least equally probable) that the disorder: i. began during active duty service. ii. began within the year after the Veteran’s separation from active duty service. (Continued on the next page)   iii. relates back to active duty service. A discussion of the facts and the medical principles involved will be of considerable assistance to the Board. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board P. Childers, 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.