Citation Nr: 21074256 Decision Date: 12/14/21 Archive Date: 12/14/21 DOCKET NO. 17-33 907 DATE: December 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition, to include depression, and to include as secondary to a service-connected disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1968 to December 1970. The Veteran died in January 2016 and the appellant is the Veteran's surviving spouse. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2020, the Board issued a decision that denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition, to include depression, and to include as secondary to a service-connected disability. The appellant appealed the denial to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claim (CAVC). In an October 2021 Order, pursuant to a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) filed by the parties, the Court vacated and remanded the November 2020 decision for compliance with the instructions in the JMR. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition, to include depression, and to include as secondary to a service-connected disability is remanded. The appellant maintains that the Veteran's depression was etiologically related to his active duty service. Specifically, the Veteran contended that he was subjected to emotional abuse as an African American during active duty service, which increased his vulnerability to clinical depression later in life. The Veteran's representative has submitted articles indicating a link between emotional abuse and the causes of depression. Alternatively, the appellant argues that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder was secondary to his service-connected liver cancer. A March 2020 VA examiner found that the Veteran's depression was worsened following his liver cancer diagnosis yet concluded that such worsening did not amount to aggravation of his depression. The parties determined that the March 2020 VA examiner failed to provide an adequate opinion as to whether the Veteran's depression was aggravated by his liver cancer diagnosis. Additionally, the parties noted that VA failed to satisfy its duty to assist in obtaining outstanding VA treatment records from Pensacola VA medical center (VAMC) dating back to 1975. Accordingly, additional development is warranted. All outstanding treatment records should also be secured. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request records from the Pensacola VAMC from 1975, to include searching for retired records if necessary, and associate with the claims file. If the records do not exist or cannot be obtained, the Veteran should be notified of such and a formal finding of unavailability should be prepared. 2. After records development is completed, obtain an addendum medical opinion from an appropriate clinician. The claims file must be reviewed. 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 provide the following opinions: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that depression is etiologically related to service. In so doing, the examiner should consider the medical literature submitted in February 2020 Appellate Brief indicating a link between emotional abuse and depression, and the Veteran's lay statement that he started receiving treatment for depression in 1975. (b.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's depression was either proximately due to service-connected disability, OR aggravated beyond its natural progression by service-connected disability, to include liver cancer. A complete rationale for all opinions expressed should be provided. 3. If the claim remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case, as appropriate. 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.