Citation Nr: 21003426 Decision Date: 01/21/21 Archive Date: 01/21/21 DOCKET NO. 15-26 748 DATE: January 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 2000 to March 2009. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was subsequently remanded in September 2018 and July 2020 decisions. The Veteran appeared at a Board hearing in April 2018; a transcript is of record. During the Board hearing, the undersigned Veterans Law Judge clarified the issues on appeal, identified potential evidentiary defects, and clarified the type of evidence that would support the Veteran’s claim. The actions of the Veterans Law Judge supplement the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) and comply with any related duties owed during a hearing. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.103. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. In July 2020, the Board remanded this matter for an addendum medical opinion to be issued. The Board noted within its decision that “previous VA treatment records dated during the period under consideration documented findings of anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified (NOS) and depressive disorder, NOS. See, e.g., a VA treatment record dated September 2011…” Notably, the Board, in its remand directions, requested that the “The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s diagnosed anxiety disorder, NOS, and depressive disorder, NOS are related to his service, to include a February 2009 report of medical history wherein he documented depression or excessive worry.” An addendum medical opinion was issued in September 2020; however, the new opinion raises concerns. The September 2020 examiner concluded that an acquired psychiatric condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by a claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner noted that “There seems to be some confusion about the date of veteran’s statement as there is no note dated [February] 2019.” However, as stated previously, the Board invited the examiner to consider a February 2009 report of medical history, a document located within the Veteran’s service treatment records. The Board has reexamined the Veteran’s service treatment records and was able to locate the February 2009 report of medical history. The examiner’s citation of the wrong date, as well as the inability to find the February 2009 document, leaves the Board with the impression that the Veteran’s medical records, including his service treatment records, were not adequately reviewed. Under the circumstances, the matter must be returned to the AOJ for compliance with the Board’s prior remand instructions. Where the remand orders of the Board are not complied with, the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. at 271. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the Veteran’s claims folder to an appropriate medical professional. The claims file must be made available to the examiner for review. If the examiner determines that an opinion cannot be rendered without examination of the Veteran, then the Veteran should be scheduled for an examination. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s diagnosed anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified, and depressive disorder, not otherwise specified are related to his service, to include a February 2009 report of medical history, located within the Veteran’s service treatment records, wherein he documented depression or excessive worry. A rationale for all opinions should be provided. 2. Thereafter, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the determination remains unfavorable to the Veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Jonah Nelson, Associate 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.