Citation Nr: 21077622
Decision Date: 12/30/21	Archive Date: 12/30/21

DOCKET NO. 17-47 798
DATE: December 30, 2021

REMANDED

Service connection for major depressive disorder is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from June 1965 to June 1969.

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2013 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

The Veteran testified at a Board hearing in April 2021.  A copy of the hearing transcript is associated with the claims file. 

1. Service connection for major depressive disorder is remanded.

The Board is not able to make a fully informed decision on the issue of service connection for major depressive disorder.

The Veteran was afforded VA examinations in October 2013 and July 2017.  A current diagnosis of major depressive disorder was confirmed.  The examiner opined that the major depressive disorder was at least as likely as not proximately due to or the result of the Veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus.  Unfortunately, this opinion is inadequate as the Veteran's diabetes mellitus type II is not a service-connected disability.  See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 460-61 (1993) (medical opinions based on an incomplete or inaccurate factual premise are not probative).  

Subsequent to the examinations, the Veteran testified that he had bouts of depression during service that he believes was related to events he witnessed during service in Thailand.  The Veteran explained that he did not seek treatment or say anything to anyone during service because he did not understand depression.  He further explained that for years after service he self-medicated with alcohol and marijuana to cope with his emotions.  The Veteran's testimony suggests that major depressive disorder is directly related to his service.  A medical opinion regarding direct service connection for major depressive disorder is not of record.  Thus, a new examination is further warranted to allow consideration of this theory of entitlement and to consider the Veteran's lay statements regarding the nature and symptomology of his major depressive disorder.  See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39-40 (2007) (a medical opinion is inadequate if it does not consider the Veteran's reports of symptoms and history). 

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Schedule the Veteran for a new examination with the appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of his major depressive disorder.  The examiner should review the claims file and address the following.

2. Whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's major depressive disorder has its onset in or is otherwise related to Veteran's period of active service, to include events witnessed during his service in Thailand.

A rationale for all opinions is to be provided.  All pertinent evidence, including both lay and medical, should be considered.  The Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinions.  If the examiner rejects the Veteran's reports of symptoms and history, he or she must provide a reason for doing so.  The examiner is reminded that the lack of medical evidence is not an adequate reason for discounting the Veteran's statements.

3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated, the Veteran's claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence.  If the claim remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC).  An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response.  Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order.

 

 

K. Parakkal

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	M. Ball Jackson, 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.