Citation Nr: 20062167 Decision Date: 09/22/20 Archive Date: 09/22/20 DOCKET NO. 15-00 534 DATE: September 22, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1986 to June 1988. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a December 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In June 2018, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the electronic file. 1. Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder is remanded. In October 2018, the Board remanded the PTSD claim for a medical examination and opinion. The remand instructions specifically directed that the examiner must determine whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran displayed any behavior in service that would be consistent with his claim of personal assault while on active duty. The examiner was also directed to address the Veteran’s contention that his PTSD is due to an in-service personal assault. The Veteran was afforded the requested examination in November 2019. The examination report did not comply with the Board’s remand instructions and must be remanded for compliance with these instructions. The examiner found that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of PTSD and it is not linked to active duty. However, the examiner failed to address whether the Veteran exhibited any behavior changes while in service which could document the presence of the alleged in-service assault. In Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998), the Court held that a remand by the Board confers on the appellant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders. A remand is required to obtain a medical opinion which complies with the Board’s remand directives. Furthermore, the Veteran was diagnosed with other specified trauma and stressor related disorder. The examiner failed to address whether this mental disorder was due to his military service. Thus, a remand is warranted to provide an opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from the November 2019 examiner, or another appropriately qualified examiner, to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s PTSD disability. The evidentiary record, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The addendum opinion must include a notation that this record review took place. It is up to the discretion of the examiner as to whether a new examination of the Veteran is necessary to provide an adequate opinion. After the record review and examination of the Veteran, if deemed necessary by the examiner, the examiner is asked to respond to the following inquiry. a. Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50% or higher degree of probability) that the Veteran displayed any behavior in service that would be consistent with his claim of personal assault while on duty. b. If the examiner is of the opinion that a personal assault occurred, the examiner should then state whether the Veteran meets the criteria for a diagnosis of psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD c. If a diagnosis of PTSD is deemed appropriate, is it at least as likely as not (a 50% or higher degree of probability) that it is causally related to the Veteran's reported stressors during service, to include a personal assault? d. Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50% or higher degree of probability) that the diagnosed other specified trauma and stressor related disorder is due to his active service. The term “at least as likely as not” does not mean within the realm of medical possibility, but rather that the medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of the conclusion as it is to find against it. Please explain in detail any opinion provided and the supporting rationale. If the medical professional cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered. In so doing, the medical professional shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question(s). G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Hughes 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.