Citation Nr: 21011405 Decision Date: 03/01/21 Archive Date: 03/01/21 DOCKET NO. 13-21 882A DATE: March 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include major depressive disorder (MDD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had creditable active service in the Navy from February 1979 to July 12, 1988. He had additional service from July 13, 1988 to October 1993 but received a bad-conduct discharge in October 1993. The appeal originates from a September 2010 decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The Veteran appeared for a hearing before the undersigned in May 2015. In October 2018, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated the December 2017 Board decision and remanded the appeal pursuant to a joint motion for remand (JMR). The Board remanded the matter in March 2019 for additional development. With respect to a left knee disorder, a December 2020 rating decision granted service connection and the issue is no longer before the Board. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include MDD and PTSD is remanded. The Veteran contends that he has PTSD due to various in-service stressors (see below) and that his diagnosed MDD had its onset in and is related to service. See May 2015 Hearing Transcript. The Board remanded the matter in August 2015 and March 2019 for in-service psychiatric treatment records, Social Security Administration (SSA) records, updated VA treatment records, and a VA examination. It was also requested that the Veteran be provided a PTSD stressor statement form and that his stressors be verified per the JMR. In-service treatment records, SSA records, and an examination (in March 2016) were obtained, and that the Veteran was provided the requested form. Though VA attempted to verify his stressors in September to October 2019, the development was incomplete. Specifically, he described a variety of stressors in August, October, and November 2015 forms ranging from enlistment to separation with the USS Raleigh, USS Piedmont, USS Saginaw, the Naval Mobile Construction Battalion, and at the Naval Air Engineering Center (NAEC). See March 2010 Military Personnel Record. In requesting verification from the Joint Services Records and Research Center (JSRRC), VA did not attempt to verify one of the claimed stressors of the USS Saginaw breaking open or of a casualty from fallen cargo on the USS Piedmont. The JSRRC’s verification of one of the stressors from the USS Piedmont relating to deployment during a storm was limited to 1981. However, the Veteran served on the USS Piedmont through 1982. There was also no attempted verification of the claimed stressor of performing funeral duties at the NAEC from 1986 onward. With respect to the March 2016 examination, the Veteran challenges the competency of the examiner and has requested information regarding the examiner’s qualifications.   2. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disorder is remanded. The Veteran contends that he has a right hip disorder secondary to his service-connected left knee. See May 2015 Hearing Transcript. He was afforded a VA examination in October 2020 and diagnosed with degenerative arthritis. Though an opinion was provided, it does not address the aggravation prong of secondary service connection. Therefore, remand is necessary for an addendum opinion. 3. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. The Veteran does not meet the schedular criteria for eligibility for TDIU. He claims that he is unable to work due in part to his psychiatric disability. The Board will therefore defer adjudication of the issue at this time. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to verify the following claimed stressors: the USS Saginaw breaking open resulting in casualties in 1983; the USS Piedmont being caught in a storm resulting in a casualty in 1982; a cargo accident aboard the USS Piedmont resulting in a casualty in 1981 or 1982; and assignment to funeral duties at the NAEC from 1986 onward. 2. Then, if verification is received, schedule the Veteran for a VA psychiatric examination to determine if he has an acquired psychiatric disability which had its onset during the Veteran’s honorable service (from June 1979 to July 12, 1988). The examination must also include whether the Veteran has PTSD due to an in-service stressor; the specific stressor(s) must be identified in the examination report. If the examiner finds that the Veteran does not have PTSD, specify which criteria were not met. The examining physician/specialist is to be asked to provide information to demonstrate that they are qualified to offer the above requested opinion (such as a curriculum vitae or similar demonstrable documentation (which may be redacted as deemed warranted)). This information is to be associated with the Veteran’s claims file. 3. Obtain information regarding the March 2016 psychiatric examiner’s qualifications to offer the opinions that were requested in the March 2019 Board Remand (such as a curriculum vitae or similar demonstrable documentation (which may be redacted as deemed warranted)). This information is to be associated with the Veteran’s claims file.. 4. Request an addendum opinion from the October 2020 hip examiner. The examiner is asked to address the following: a. Is it at least as likely as not that a right hip disorder was proximately caused by the service-connected left knee disability? b. Is it at least as likely as not that a right hip disorder underwent any incremental increase in disability, regardless of its permanence, due to the service-connected left knee disability? The term “incremental increase in disability” means additional impairment of earning capacity. Objective measurement, or numerical quantification, is not required to ascertain an increase in disability. Moreover, any “incremental increase in disability” need not be permanent. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Alhinnawi 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.