Citation Nr: 21007868 Decision Date: 02/10/21 Archive Date: 02/10/21 DOCKET NO. 15-32 292 DATE: February 10, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from March 2010 to March 2013. This case comes on appeal of a February 2014 rating decision. This matter has been before the Board on multiple occasions. Most recently, in June 2019, the Board remanded the claim for further development. As will be discussed below, there was not substantial compliance with the Board’s remand instructions; therefore, additional remand is necessary. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. A remand by the Board confers upon the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand instructions, and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Here, in its June 2019 remand, the Board noted that it was unclear whether the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) had the correct address for the Veteran on file and, therefore, it was unclear whether the Veteran had received requests for additional information and examination. Accordingly, the Board instructed the AOJ to clarify the Veteran’s address, resend requests for information regarding the Veteran’s claimed PTSD stressor, and afford the Veteran a new VA examination for acquired psychiatric disorders. Subsequent to the Board’s remand, in September 2019, the Veteran submitted correspondence providing additional information regarding her claimed PTSD stressors. In November 2019, the AOJ sent the Veteran a development letter specifically requesting a description of PTSD stressors. The Veteran did not respond to the November 2019 letter. In August 2020, the AOJ issued a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) asserting that, since the Veteran had not responded to the November 2019 letter, in the absence of a verified stressor statement, it could not proceed with the Veteran’s claim. First, the Board notes that it appears the AOJ treated the Veteran’s September 2019 statement as an attempt to file a new claim, but did not recognize the statement as evidence related to the present claim. The notion the AOJ expressed in the August 2020 SSOC that the Veteran had not provided VA with stressor information is therefore incorrect. Furthermore, the Board’s June 2019 remand instructed the AOJ to afford the Veteran a new examination for all acquired psychiatric disorders. The AOJ did not do so. Although the Board’s remand instructions required that the AOJ solicit stressor information prior to the scheduling of an examination, the scheduling of such examination was not conditioned on the submission of stressor information. Indeed, the need for additional examination was predicated on the fact that the Board had previously deemed prior VA examinations to be inadequate. Thus, affording the Veteran a new examination was a part of VA’s duty to assist. The failure to provide the Veteran with a new examination constitutes a continued duty to assist error. Thus, on remand, the AOJ should comply with the Board’s previous instructions by scheduling the Veteran for an examination for all acquired psychiatric disorders, with consideration of the Veteran’s September 2019 statement regarding her claimed PTSD stressors. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination of all acquired psychiatric disorders, to include PTSD. The examiner should review the entire claims file, and the report of examination should include discussion of the Veteran’s documented history and assertions. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and all clinical findings should be reported in detail. The examiner should clearly identify all acquired psychiatric disorders. Then, with respect to each such diagnosed disability, the examiner should render an opinion, as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., there is a 50 percent or greater probability) that the disability had onset in, or is otherwise related to service. In doing, so, the examiner should specifically address the Veteran’s entire medical record, to include a January 2019 diagnosis of adjustment disorder and a medication history containing a prescription of daily Venlafaxine for mood and anxiety. The examiner should also address the Veteran’s diagnosis of PTSD stemming from quarterly therapy sessions. The examiner should set forth all examination findings, along with complete rationale for the conclusions reached, in a printed report. (Continued on Next Page) 2. Then, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought remains denied, send the Veteran and her representative a supplemental statement of the case. V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Giaquinto, 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.