Citation Nr: 21071191 Decision Date: 11/30/21 Archive Date: 11/30/21 DOCKET NO. 19-29 909 DATE: November 30, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability, claimed as anxiety is remanded. INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1975 to November 1976. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2017 rating decision of a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In May 2020, the Board denied this issue; the Veteran subsequently appealed this denial to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). Pursuant to a Joint Motion for Partial Remand, the Court issued a January 2021 Order to vacate the May 2020 denial and remanded the underlying claim to the Board for readjudication. In July 2021, the Board remanded the Veteran's appeal to the RO for additional development. It has now been returned to the Board. While the Veteran has reported an anxiety disorder and at other times posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the record reflects various potential psychiatric diagnoses. As such, the Board will broadly construe the claim to include any psychiatric disability. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability, claimed as anxiety is remanded. The Veteran seeks service connection for a psychiatric disability. He asserts he was assaulted in service, resulting in a psychiatric disability, and service connection is therefore warranted. The Veteran has also asserted that his service-connected disabilities have caused or aggravated a psychiatric disability. He has been granted service connection for residuals of a laceration of the left wrist, tinnitus, scars of the left wrist, and bilateral hearing loss. Service connection may be awarded for any disability which is proximately due to or the result of, or is otherwise aggravated by, a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. While the Veteran was afforded a September 2021 VA medical opinion, this opinion did not address the Veteran's secondary service connection claim. Although the examiner discussed the Veteran's in-service left wrist injury and found it did not cause a current psychiatric disability, the examiner did not address the subsequent service-connected residuals of this injury, and whether this or any other service-connected disability or disabilities caused or aggravated a psychiatric disability at any time following service. In the absence of such an opinion, remand is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the Veteran's claims file to an appropriate health care provider for a new medical opinion. The Veteran need not be scheduled for in-person examination unless such examination is found by the examiner to be necessary to comply with this remand order. After review of the claims file, the examiner is asked to address the following: Is it at least as likely as not (a probability of 50 percent or more) that a current psychiatric disability is due to or aggravated by (worsened in severity beyond the natural progress of the disorder) by a service-connected disability or disabilities? The examiner is reminded the Veteran has been granted service connection for residuals of a laceration of the left wrist, tinnitus, scars of the left wrist, and bilateral hearing loss. A detailed rationale is requested for any opinion provided. 2. After undertaking any additional development deemed appropriate and giving the Veteran full opportunity to supplement the record, adjudicate the Veteran's pending claim in light of any additional evidence added to the record. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be afforded the applicable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Thomas D. Jones, 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.