Citation Nr: 20034074 Decision Date: 05/15/20 Archive Date: 05/15/20 DOCKET NO. 17-37 926 DATE: May 15, 2020 ORDER The appeal as to the claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, other than posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and unspecified depressive disorder, is moot, and the claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, characterized as PTSD with an unspecified depressive disorder was granted in a September 2019 Board decision and effectuated by December 2019 rating decision. 2. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the symptoms of the Veteran’s various psychiatric diagnoses cannot be differentiated and as such are attributable to the service-connected acquired psychiatric disorder. 3. There is no remaining case or controversy with respect to a claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. CONCLUSION OF LAW The Board lacks jurisdiction over the claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, other than posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and unspecified depressive disorder, because that claim has been granted and rendered moot. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.7, 20.101, 20.200, 20.202. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from December 1997 to August 1998. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions dated October 2015 and September 2016 of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). An April 2018 the Board decision denied the Veteran’s service connection claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder to include PTSD as related to military sexual trauma (MST) and TDIU. The Veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“CAVC” or “the Court”) and in October 2018, CAVC granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) which vacated and remanded the Board’s April 2018 of both claims. In April 2019, the Board remanded the appeal to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for further development. A September 2019 Board decision granted service connection for PTSD and an unspecified depressive disorder as secondary to military sexual trauma. The September 2019 decision also remanded a claim for an acquired psychiatric other than PTSD and unspecified depressive disorder to include as secondary to military sexual trauma and TDIU. The Veteran opted into the AMA system by submitting a VA Form 20-0996 Request for Higher Level Review in April 2020. Thus, entitlement to a TDIU will not be considered herein. The Veteran’s VA claims file has now been returned to the Board for further appellate proceedings. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD and unspecified depressive disorder to include as secondary to military sexual trauma. In this case, the Veteran’s claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder was granted by a September 2019 Board decision and effectuated in a December 2019 rating decision. As a general matter, the grant of a claim of service connection constitutes an award of full benefits sought on an appeal of the denial of a service connection claim. Seri v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 441, 447 (2007). See also Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With regard to psychiatric disorders, it is possible that one claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder could at some point be considered separate claims for service connection for different psychiatric disorder. See Amberman v. Shinseki, 570 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009). However, that is not the case here. Specifically, the March 2019 private medical opinion of Dr. J.P., which was the basis for the grant of service connection for PTSD and unspecified depressive disorder stated that it was not possible to differentiate the Veteran’s symptoms. Dr. J.P. further indicated that there is no set reaction to military sexual trauma and the Veteran’s symptoms from diagnoses including PTSD, bipolar disorder and alcohol use disorder are all documented responses to this type of trauma. The Board acknowledges the June 2016 PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) completed by the Veteran’s treating social worker who opined that the Veteran’s symptoms of flashbacks, nightmares, distressing recollections of sexual assault, intense physiological distress and reactivity related to stimuli the sexual assault were distinct from other diagnosed disorders and best described by PTSD diagnosis. However, additional medical records received from the social worker’s clinic indicated that the Veteran’s treatment plan was for all psychiatric symptoms which contributed to her occupational and social impairment. There was no medical evidence identifying a basis to distinguish the treatment of symptoms by diagnosis. Specifically, the Veteran’s treatment involved medication, individual counseling and therapeutic management, and group therapy. In that regard the Board notes that the June 2016 examiner also stated that the it was impossible to differentiate what portion of the Veteran’s occupational and social impairment was caused by each mental disorder. The Board finds that the June 2016 PTSD DBQ private opinion is not inconsistent with the March 2019 private opinion of Dr. J.P. Accordingly, the Board also finds there is no indication that there are symptoms of another psychiatric disorder that are distinct from the one for which service connection has been granted. Mittleider v. West, 11 Vet. App. 181, 182 (1998) (when effects of service-connected and non-service-connected disabilities cannot be separated, reasonable doubt requires that the signs and symptoms should be attributed to the service-connected disabilities). Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding that the symptoms of the Veteran’s various psychiatric diagnoses cannot differentiated and as such are attributable to the service-connected acquired psychiatric disorder. Here, there no longer remains a case or controversy with respect to this claim. The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.202. Therefore, the Board lacks jurisdiction over this issue because it has been granted and rendered moot on appeal. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.7, 20.101, 20.200, 20.202. Therefore, dismissal of this claim is warranted. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Alexander 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.