Citation Nr: 21006217 Decision Date: 02/03/21 Archive Date: 02/03/21 DOCKET NO. 13-13 675 DATE: February 3, 2021 REMANDED The claim for service connection for depression is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from March 1985 to March 1988. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2011 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In connection with this appeal, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in September 2016. A transcript of that hearing is of record. This appeal was most recently before the Board in January 2020. At that time, the Board, in part, denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and SSD, to include as secondary to fibromyalgia. In a September 2020 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), the Veteran only appealed the current claim on a direct service connection theory. It was specifically noted in the JMPR that the Veteran did not appeal the Board’s denial of (1) service connection for fibromyalgia and (2) service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and somatic symptom disorder, as secondary to fibromyalgia. The JMPR asserted that the Board’s decision as to those issues should remain intact. As such, the decision on appeal has been restyled as listed on the cover page. Here, the Veteran asserts that she has depression that began during her active service after she gave birth to a stillborn child in March 1987. She testified that she received psychiatric treatment during active service and that she has continued to receive treatment since she was discharged. In a June 2011 opinion, authored by the Veteran’s treating physician, Dr. M.S. After reporting the Veteran’s 1987 birth of her stillborn child, Dr. M.S. opined, in part, that the Veteran had experienced ongoing difficulties with anxiety and depression since that time, and he stated that the stillbirth may consequently been an inciting factor. The Board finds Dr. M.S.’s opinion to be of reduced probative value in evaluating the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder (other than PTSD) because he did not provide any medical rationale for his blanket conclusion. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). Other medical opinions have linked the Veteran’s depression to her fibromyalgia, which is not service connected. For example, a June 2014 opinion, authored by K.C., M.S.W. K.C. opined that the Veteran’s anxiety and depression were secondary to fibromyalgia. As the March 2019 VA examiner did not diagnose the Veteran with depression, she did not provide an opinion as to etiological relationship to military service, notably the stillborn birth of the Veteran’s child in 1987. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain a VA examination to address the etiology of the Veteran’s depression. The examiner should answer the following questions: a) Does the Veteran meet the DSM-5 criteria for depression? Why or why not? b) If so, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that it began in or was otherwise caused by the Veteran’s active military service? Why or why not? In so doing, the examiner should consider the medical opinions suggesting that depression has continued from the Veteran’s time in service, as well as the suggestion that it is the result of her non service connected fibromyalgia. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Carole Kammel, 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.