Citation Nr: 21063723 Decision Date: 10/15/21 Archive Date: 10/15/21 DOCKET NO. 13-18 130 DATE: October 15, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an intestinal disorder, to include as due to herbicide exposure is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1966 to July 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2012 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was last before the Board in February 2021, when it was remanded for further development. This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c). 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder is remanded. The Veteran contends he has a nervous condition as a result of active service. In a June 2021 letter, the Veteran's private physician stated that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's nervous condition is due to his duties while in service. In the February 2018 VA examination, the VA examiner concluded that the Veteran does not have post-traumatic stress disorder but does have an unspecified depressive disorder. With respect to the unspecified depressive disorder, the VA examiner found it was unrelated to service and based the opinion on the fact that the Veteran's mental treatment began two years after service. The matter was remanded for an examiner to address whether the diagnosed unspecified depressive disorder is related to service. Additionally, the examiner was asked to explain why the claimed treatment arising two years after service renders a psychiatric disorder less likely than not related to service. In accordance with the February 2021 remand directives, an addendum opinion was obtained. Nevertheless, that opinion is not fully responsive to the remand directives. The April 2021 VA examiner opined the condition is less likely than not related to the service, finding that the Veteran has no diagnosis on Axis I. As the Veteran was diagnosed with unspecified depressive disorder during the pendency of the claim, then Board finds that an opinion is warranted to reconcile the conflicting opinions. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 2. Entitlement to service connection for an intestinal disorder, to include as due to herbicide exposure is remanded. In accordance with the February 2021 remand directives, an April 2021 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's adenocarcinoma of colon is less likely as not caused by or a result of agent orange exposure as there is no evidence of any relationship as per review of medical literature. However, the examiner did not adequately address the Veteran's medical history, family history, lifestyle factors or other factors that could impact the etiology of the Veteran's adenocarcinoma of colon. Only with such information can the Board adequately weigh the examiner's conclusion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion concerning the claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder. If a new examination is deemed necessary to respond to the question presented, one should be scheduled. After review of the claims file, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not that any unspecified depressive disorder diagnosed during the pendency of the appeal is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) related to service. The examiner should explain why or why not. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion concerning the claim for service connection for an intestinal disorder/colon cancer. If a new examination is deemed necessary to respond to the question presented, one should be scheduled. After review of the claims file, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's adenocarcinoma of colon is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) caused by or a result of agent orange exposure. The examiner should be advised that merely stating that the adenocarcinoma of colon is not a recognized presumptive disease is not an adequate rationale. The question here is, what is the likelihood that this Veteran's adenocarcinoma of colon is related to his exposure to herbicide agents, given his medical history, family history, absence or presence of other risk factors, etc. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Asare, 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.