Citation Nr: 21077123 Decision Date: 12/28/21 Archive Date: 12/28/21 DOCKET NO. 18-35 624 DATE: December 28, 2021 ORDER Service connection for major depressive disorder is granted. REMANDED Service connection for right hip impairment is remanded. Service connection for left hip impairment is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's major depressive disorder is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for major depressive disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran has active service from January 1978 to October 1984. This matter is on appeal from December 2016 (major depressive disorder) and November 2018 (hips) rating decisions. In February 2021, a hearing was held before the undersigned. Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service, even if the disability was initially diagnosed after service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). 1. Service connection for major depressive disorder The first element is met, in that the October 2016 VA examination and a December 2018 private medical opinion both indicate a current diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Regarding the second element, the Veteran's personal statements and testimony indicate that the Veteran observed one serviceman being crushed by a tank and a separate serviceman being electrocuted. The Veteran's VA and private examiners both find these reports to be credible, as does the Board. Consistent with this, military personnel records indicate a drop in performance during service, in that a July 1979 evaluation report characterizes the Veteran as "a very outstanding soldier," but an August 1983 evaluation report states that the Veteran "has not yet fully adapted to the increased responsibilities required of his rank" and that "he occasionally has problems in carrying out difficult missions." In light of this evidence and the Veteran's credibility, the Board finds that the second element of service connection is met. The third element, nexus, is also met, in that the evidence is at least in equipoise. An October 2016 VA medical opinion concludes that the Veteran's major depressive disorder is less likely than not related to service. Rather, based on an evaluation of the evidence and the Veteran's testimony, the examiner ascribes the Veteran's depression to "dissatisfaction with his relationship with his wife as well as financial problems." A December 2018 private medical opinion concludes that the Veteran's depression is at least as likely as not related to service. This conclusion is primarily based on the fact that the Veteran's reports of in-service depressive symptoms are analogous to post-service depressive symptoms. These medical opinions are probative because they are based on a review of the record and contain clear conclusions with supporting data connected by a reasoned medical explanation. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 30102 (2008). As the evidence is at least in equipoise, the Veteran is entitled to a favorable finding with respect to the existence of a nexus between major depressive disorder and service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 5556 (1990). As the three elements are met, service connection for major depressive disorder is warranted. There is some dispute as to whether the Veteran's current diagnosis of PTSD is at least as likely as not related to service. Both medical opinions cited above indicate that PTSD is related to service. However, the RO has not obtained "credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred," as required for a claim of service connection for PTSD. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). However, such corroboration is not required for service connection for major depressive disorder, and during the February 2021 hearing the Veteran's representative indicated that service connection for any acquired psychiatric disorder would represent a complete grant. As an award of service connection for major depression represents a complete that can be awarded without additional verification, the Board shall not at this time request additional verification of the Veteran's in-service stressors. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 39 (1993). REASONS FOR REMAND A medical examination or medical opinion is necessary in a claim for service connection when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the Veteran's service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 8186 (2006). See also 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i). 1. Service connection for right hip impairment is remanded. 2. Service connection for left hip impairment is remanded. These elements are satisfied with regard to the claims of entitlement to service connection for right and left hip impairment. As to the first element, at the February 2021 hearing, the Veteran describes how during service because of his hips he began to have problems walking and sitting for extended periods of time. Regarding the second element, at the hearing he testified that he was diagnosed with inflammation of the hips during a post-service physical examination for his commercial driver's license. Regarding the third and fourth elements, there is an indication that in-service hip pain could be related to current hip inflammation, but there is insufficient evidence of record by which the Board can make a decision. As the four McLendon elements are satisfied, the Veteran is entitled to a VA examination and medical opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all VA treatment records. If no records are available, the claims folder must indicate this fact. Any additional records identified by the Veteran during the course of the remand should also be obtained, following the receipt of any necessary authorizations from the Veteran, and associated with the claims file. 2. After obtaining any additional records to the extent possible, provide an examination (or telehealth interview, review of the record, etc. if an in-person examination is not feasible) and obtain a medical opinion regarding the nature, onset, and etiology of any right and left hip impairment. The examiner should conduct all necessary tests and studies, and provide the requested opinions: 3. Whether the Veteran has any right or left hip impairment. 4. Whether it is at least as likely as not that any right or left hip impairment was incurred in the Veteran's service. In rendering these opinions, the examiner should consider the Veteran's hearing testimony that his hip impairment worsened over time during service. The examiner must assume as true that the Veteran has had right hip and left hip problems since service. The examiner should provide a complete rationale for any opinions offered. If the examiner is unable to provide any requested opinion without resort to speculation, he or she should explain why this is so. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Cannon, Brian 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.