Citation Nr: 21008793 Decision Date: 02/18/21 Archive Date: 02/18/21 DOCKET NO. 14-15 770A DATE: February 18, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from November 1970 to September 1973. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. This matter was previously before the Board in December 2015 and March 2018. The March 2018 Board remand directives specified that the Veteran’s claims file should be sent to examiner who conducted the March 2016 VA psychological examination for an addendum VA medical opinion, if available, or to another qualified examiner. The examiner would then make the determination if a new examination would need to be scheduled to address whether the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder was incurred in or is otherwise related to service. A May 2019 VA 21-2507a (Request for Physical Examination) was generated and explicitly indicates that an addendum VA medical opinion be obtained and that the Veteran does not need to report for a new VA psychological examination. However, in the subsequent July 2020 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), it states that the Veteran failed to RSVP to a scheduled examination and that no further development is warranted. There is no indication that the claims file was ever sent to an appropriate examiner to decide whether a new VA psychological examination was necessary. Accordingly, the Board regrettably finds that its March 2018 remand directives were not substantially complied and that the matter must be remanded to address this previously mandated development. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding VA or private clinical records. 2. Send the claims file to the VA examiner who conducted the August 2016 VA psychological examination, if available, or to another qualified examiner. If a new examination is deemed necessary SPECIFICALLY BY THE EXAMINER, one should be scheduled. After reviewing the file, the examiner should respond to the following: (a) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder first manifested in or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s period of active duty? Please explain why or why not. (b) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder is caused or is aggravated (permanently worsened beyond its natural progression) by his service-connected right and left knee disabilities? Please explain why or why not. Note: the “aggravation” prong of secondary service connection requires a worsening of the claimed disorder, but not a permanent worsening of the claimed disorder. Rather, compensation under 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 and 1131 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (b) is due for any incremental increase in disability, meaning any additional impairment of earning capacity above the degree of disability existing before the increase, in a nonservice-connected disability resulting from a service-connected disability, regardless of its permanence. Ward v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 233 (2019); See also Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995) (en banc). (Continued on the next page)   The examiner should specifically discuss the STRs showing a complaint of nervousness in December 1970 and the notation in the VA treatment notes that the Veteran feels his knee disabilities may be affecting his emotional state. A complete rationale for the opinions rendered must be provided. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinions without resorting to speculation, he or she should expressly indicate this and provide a supporting rationale as to why that is so. A complete rationale for the opinions rendered must be provided. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinions without resorting to speculation, he or she should expressly indicate this and provide a supporting rationale as to why that is so. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Kyle McKone 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.