Citation Nr: 21067387 Decision Date: 11/04/21 Archive Date: 11/04/21 DOCKET NO. 20-21 345 DATE: November 4, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence having been received, the claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder is reopened. REMANDED The issue of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a March 2014 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for stress disorder; the Veteran did not appeal that decision or submit new and material evidence during the appeal period and that decision is final. 2. Some of the evidence received since the last final denial is new and relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. CONCLUSION OF LAW New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 6, 1952, to September 25, 1952. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2018 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript is of record. New and Material Evidence Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder The Veteran initially filed a claim for service connection for a nervous condition in October 1952, which was denied in a February 1953 rating decision. The Veteran filed a claim in July 2010 for service connection for a stress disorder, which was denied in an August 2011 rating decision. In September 2013, the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for PTSD. The claim was subsequently denied in a March 2014 rating decision. The Veteran did not perfect an appeal or submit new and material evidence within one year of these rating decisions. Therefore, these decisions became final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(b), 20.302, 20.1103 (2016). In August 2016, the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for PTSD, dementia, schizophrenia, sleep disturbances, and depression; this claim was denied in an April 2017 rating decision. The Veteran again filed a claim for a psychiatric disability in July 2017. The RO denied this claim based on a lack of new and material evidence in the February 2018 rating decision that is the subject of this appeal. The Veteran subsequently submitted additional evidence, and in the February 2020 Statement of the Case the RO found that new and material evidence had been received and reopened the claim. The Board has an obligation to make an independent determination of its jurisdiction regardless of findings or actions by the RO. See Barnett v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 1 (1995), aff'd, 83 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Generally, if a claim of entitlement to service connection has been previously denied and that decision has become final, the claim can be reopened and reconsidered only if new and material evidence is presented with respect to that claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5108. New evidence is defined as existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers. Material evidence means evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative, nor redundant of the evidence previously of record, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). The threshold to reopen a claim is low. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117 (2010). New and material evidence can be construed as that which would contribute to a more complete picture of the circumstances surrounding the origin of a Veteran's disability or injury, even when it would not be enough to convince the Board to grant the claim. See Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purpose of establishing whether new and material evidence has been received, the credibility of the evidence is to be presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). The basis of the denial of service connection for stress disorder in the April 2017, March 2014, and August 2011 rating decisions was that no new and material evidence had been submitted since the final denial of the Veteran's initial claim for a nervous condition in February 1953. The RO also noted in the August 2011 rating decision that the record lacked any evidence that the Veteran had a current stress disorder, to include PTSD. Evidence added to the record since the April 2017 rating decision includes a September 2019 psychological evaluation by private psychologist T.F. noting a diagnosis of PTSD. The examiner's report attributes this condition to fear and verbal abuse that the Veteran experienced during active duty. Additionally, a December 2019 VA examination was added to the record in which the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with unspecified anxiety disorder; the examiner noted this condition to be due to the Veteran's fear of being sent to Korea during service. In addition, a March 2021 opinion from private psychologist Q.A. was added to the record, in which the examiner diagnoses other specified stressor disorder and persistent depressive disorder. The clinician opines that the Veteran's preexisting depression was at least as likely as not worsened beyond its normal course by service, that the Veteran's anxiety at least as likely as not began during service, and that the Veteran's other specified stressor disorder is at least as likely as not related to service. This evidence is new, as it was not previously submitted to agency decision makers. It is also material, as it raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim for service connection. Accordingly, the Board finds that new and material evidence has been received and the claim for service connection is reopened. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. The Veteran contends that he suffers from a stress disorder (also claimed as nervous condition, PTSD, dementia, schizophrenia, sleep disturbances, and depression) acquired during active-duty service. The available service records document schizoid personality disorder as well as a reported suicide attempt at age 15 prevented by his father. The opinions of record do not adequately address the schizoid personality disorder diagnosis when considering symptomatology during service, and/or are inconsistent with other evidence of record. For example, the April 2021 report provides a favorable opinion, in part based on the Veteran suffering from severe anxiety, nightmares, and distress over his service experiences which worsened in 2012, when VA treatment records dated from 2003 to July 2012 note the Veteran denying all mental health symptoms, with negative depression and PTSD screens. Accordingly, remand for an addendum opinion is warranted. The Board notes the Veteran's representative has requested the December 2019 VA examiner's credentials. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the curriculum vitae (CV) of the December 2019 VA examiner to the Veteran and his attorney. 2. Obtain updated VA treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 3. Obtain an addendum medical opinion on the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. If a new examination is deemed necessary to respond to the questions presented, one should be scheduled. After review of the claims file, the examiner should respond to the following: (a) Does the evidence indicate the Veteran had a psychiatric disability that undebatably existed prior to service? If so, please identify the disability. (b) For any diagnosis other than a personality disorder, indicate whether the condition underwent a permanent worsening (versus a temporary exacerbation of symptoms) during service. If so, was that permanent worsening undebatably the result of the natural progression of the condition, rather than the result of any in-service disease, event, or injury? (c) If any psychiatric condition did not preexist service, is at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of 50 percent or greater) that the condition had its clinical onset during active service or is related to any in-service disease, event, or injury? A rationale for all opinions expressed should be provided. In rendering the opinion, the examiner should address the March 2021 private opinion. 4. If the claim remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Jesteadt, 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.