Citation Nr: 20028906 Decision Date: 04/24/20 Archive Date: 04/24/20 DOCKET NO. 15-18 839 DATE: April 24, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the United States Marine Corps (USMC) from February 1964 to March 1965. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Chicago, Illinois. In connection with this appeal, the Veteran and her sister testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in January 2018. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file. This case was previously before the Board in March 2018, at which time the issue currently on appeal was remanded for additional development. The case has now been returned to the Board for further appellate action. The Board finds that additional development is required before the claim on appeal is decided. In the March 2018 remand, the Board directed that the Veteran be afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any currently present psychiatric disability. A review of the record shows that the Veteran was afforded the directed VA examination in December 2018. At that time, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s psychiatric disability was less likely as not related to an in-service event, injury, or disease. However, the Board finds that the examiner did not provide a sufficient rationale for the opinion provided. In this regard, the examiner noted that there was no treatment from the Veteran’s separation until her post-service diagnosis of depressive disorder in 2013. The examiner failed to give adequate consideration to the Veteran’s lay statements that she has experienced symptoms since service. Further, the VA examiner appears to have simple reiterated the exact same opinion that was provided by the March 2015 VA examiner. The language used is nearly identical. That opinion has already been determined to be inadequate, hence the request for a new medical opinion in the March 2018 remand. As such, a mere restatement of the opinion is simply not sufficient. Therefore, the Board finds that the development conducted does not adequately comply with the March 2018 Board remand directives. Compliance with a remand is not discretionary, and failure to comply with the terms of a remand necessitates remand for corrective action. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Therefore, an addendum medical opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s psychiatric disability must be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the Veteran’s claims file to the VA Medical Center for an addendum medical opinion, by psychiatrist or psychologist who has not previously examined the Veteran or provided an opinion in this appeal, to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s psychiatric disability. The claims file must be made available to, and reviewed by the examiner. Based on a review of the record, the examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that the Veteran has a psychiatric disability that had its onset during the Veteran’s active service, or that is otherwise etiologically related to such service. In forming the opinion, the examiner must consider the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of her symptoms. Further, the examiner should presume that the Veteran is a reliable historian with regard to her report of the onset and continuity of her symptoms. The rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. Another VA examination of the Veteran should only be conducted if deemed necessary by the VA examiner provided the requested medical opinions. 2. Confirm that all medical opinions provided comport with this remand and undertake any other development determined to be warranted. 3. Then, readjudicate the appeal. If the decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Ivan Franklin 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.