Citation Nr: 20006185 Decision Date: 01/24/20 Archive Date: 01/24/20 DOCKET NO. 13-22 499 DATE: January 24, 2020 REMANDED Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include a nervous condition and depression, and as secondary to a service-connected neck disability with associated radiculopathy, is remanded. Service connection for a left eye disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1985 to October 1986. In October 2017, a Board videoconference hearing was held before the undersigned; a transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. In February 2018, the Board remanded the above claims for further development. As to representation, in April 2019 the Veteran submitted a properly executed VA Form 21 – 22 for the New York State Division of Veterans’ Affairs. This revoked all prior representatives. Resubmission of a prior Form 21-22a for a private attorney does not revoke this valid Form 21-22 for this state representative. 1. Acquired psychiatric disorder During the February 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran raised the issue of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder secondary to a neck disability. Specifically, it was contended that an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) caused a worsening of his depression. An August 2018 rating decision granted service connection for intervertebral disc syndrome with cervical disc disease, status post ACDF, which included granting separate ratings for associated radiculopathy of the upper extremities. As the June 2018 VA psychological examination proceeded the grant of service connection for the neck and associated radiculopathy disabilities, the contention of secondary service connection was not considered by the examiner. On remand, a VA examination is necessary to address the contention of secondary service connection between an acquired psychiatric disorder and the Veteran’s service-connected neck and associated radiculopathy disabilities. 2. Left eye disability The Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance with the Board’s February 2018 remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271. The Board had asked for etiology opinions regarding a left eye disability, to include dry eye, small pterygium, and compound hyperopic astigmatic presbyope. The June 2018 examiner only provided an etiology opinion regarding pterygium, and provided no opinions regarding dry eye and compound hyperopic astigmatic presbyope. A remand is required to obtain a VA opinion that correctly addresses these remaining diagnoses. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records. 2. After completing directive #1, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disorder. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not (1) proximately due to service-connected intervertebral disc syndrome with cervical disc disease, status post anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with associated radiculopathy, or (2) aggravated beyond its natural progression by service-connected for intervertebral disc syndrome with cervical disc disease, status post ACDF with associated radiculopathy. The examiner must address the Veteran’s contention that his depression worsened following the ACDF. 3. After completing directive #1, obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s dry eye and compound hyperopic astigmatic presbyope are at least as likely as not related to service. The rationale for this opinion must include some discussion of the Veteran’s service records showing an August 1986 left corneal abrasion and his testimony concerning his current symptoms. Detailed reasons for all opinions should be provided. Nathaniel J. Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board AD 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.