Citation Nr: 21074292 Decision Date: 12/14/21 Archive Date: 12/14/21 DOCKET NO. 17-27 828 DATE: December 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ankle disability, for substitution purposes is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include major depressive disorder, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), for substitution purposes is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty training from January 1980 to May 1980, and active service from July 1980 to July 1983. He died in July 2019. The Appellant is the Veteran's surviving spouse, who has been substituted for the Veteran as the appellant for purposes of processing his claim to completion. See 38 U.S.C. § 5121A. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from rating decisions dated in November 2014 and May 2015 of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). Specifically, the November 2014 rating decision denied service connection for ankle disabilities, and the May 2015 rating decision denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability. The Board sincerely apologizes for any additional delay in rendering a decision for these claims on appeal; however, to ensure the Appellant is afforded every opportunity to substantiate her claims, a remand is required. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ankle disability, for substitution purposes is remanded. The Veteran was not afforded a VA examination for his claim before he died. However, the evidence of record indicates that a medical opinion is warranted. In a June 2014 statement in support of his claim, the Veteran reported that he fell off a truck in service and hurt his ankles and feet, and was on crutches. In November 2015, the Veteran was noted to have had calcaneal spurs and degenerative changes of the tarsometatarsal compartment. In July 2016, the Veteran's ex-wife submitted a statement indicating that she remembers the Veteran being on crutches for months when he was on active duty. In his May 2017 VA Form 9, the Veteran reported that both ankles were bandaged in service at an aid station, which is why the injury is not in his service records. Based on the available evidence, the Board finds that an opinion is warranted in order to determine if there is a medical nexus between the Veteran's reported in-service event and his calcaneal spurs and degenerative changes. 2. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include major depressive disorder, anxiety, and PTSD, for substitution purposes is remanded. The Board concludes that a medical opinion is warranted for the Appellant's psychiatric disability claim as well. The Veteran's service treatment records show that in June 1983, he indicated that he had excessive worry and/or depression. The Veteran's outpatient records show that he had been diagnosed with PTSD and major depressive disorder, and had a history of anxiety. In his May 2017 VA Form 9, the Veteran reported that his psychiatric disability started on active duty and was related to poor treatment by his platoon sergeant. The AOJ should obtain an opinion as to whether there is a nexus between the excessive worry and depression the Veteran reported in service and his subsequent diagnoses. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an opinion from a qualified VA examiner regarding the etiology of the Veteran's calcaneal spurs and degenerative changes of the tarsometatarsal compartment. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand should be made available to the examiner for review. The examiner is asked to address the following: (a.) The examiner should directly address the Veteran's lay statements and report of symptomatology as detailed in his June 2014 and May 2017 written statements, and his ex-wife's July 2016 statement regarding the Veteran's use of crutches. (b.) The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that the Veteran's calcaneal spurs and degenerative changes of the tarsometatarsal compartment were the result of, caused by, or related to, jumping from a truck on active duty. 2. Obtain an opinion from a qualified VA examiner regarding the etiology of the Veteran's PTSD, major depressive disorder, and anxiety. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand should be made available to the examiner for review. The examiner is asked to address the following: (a.) The examiner should directly address the Veteran's service treatment records showing a report of excessive worry and depression in June 1983 and his May 2017 report of onset of symptoms. (b.) The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that the Veteran's depression or anxiety was the result of, caused by, or related to active duty service. (c.) The examiner should review the Veteran's outpatient records indicating a diagnosis of PTSD. (d.) The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that the Veteran's PTSD was etiologically related to service. The examiner should then indicate: (1) whether the identified stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD under the appropriate criteria; and (2) whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's symptoms were related to the claimed stressor. (Continued on the next page) A complete rationale must be provided for all expressed opinions. A complete explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. A clearly stated rationale must not be based solely on lack of documentation or records. The reasons for any opinion must include a discussion of the relevant evidence. If the clinician cannot provide a requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the clinician must provide the reasons why. L. BARSTOW Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Smith, 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.