Citation Nr: 21012450 Decision Date: 03/04/21 Archive Date: 03/04/21 DOCKET NO. 14-43 348 DATE: March 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1979 to December 1982. This matter comes to the Board from a January 2014 decision issued by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The AOJ treated the Veteran’s initial psychiatric claim as separate claims for service-connected disability compensation for anxiety and for depression with suicidal thoughts. Pursuant to Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009), the issue is properly understood as one broad claim for any acquired psychiatric disorder which may be related to military service. The Board remanded the case for further development in May 2018. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. In a set of handwritten notes, received in February 2016, the Veteran indicated that, for two years, she had been receiving benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA). According to the most recent psychiatric examination report, dated September 2020, SSA was still paying her a monthly disability benefit to the Veteran for her “nerves” – i.e. her psychiatric disorder. VA has the duty to obtain potentially relevant records from other Federal agencies, including the SSA. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). Although the record includes multiple references to the receipt of SSA disability benefits, it is not clear whether the AOJ has ever made a request to the SSA for the medical and other evidence relied on by the agency to determine that the Veteran was eligible for benefits. On remand, the AOJ should make an appropriate records request to the SSA. In May 2018, the Board remanded this case with instructions to the AOJ to attempt to obtain outstanding VA treatment records prior to 1998 and treatment records from a psychiatrist in private practice. The AOJ made an appropriate request for the older VA records and received a response indicating that all available records had been provided. The Veteran provided an authorization for the private psychiatrist’s records, but neglected to identify the psychiatrist’s address and failed to sign the release form. Although the AOJ encouraged the Veteran to supply the missing information in follow-up letters, dated September 2020 and November 2020, the Veteran did not provide a corrected authorization form. Because this case must be remanded to request the outstanding SSA records, the AOJ should give her another opportunity to authorize the release of the psychiatrist’s records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should send a request to the Social Security Administration (SSA) for copies of all of the Veteran’s records, not only medical records but all other SSA records, including but not limited to copies of the Veteran’s application for benefits and the SSA decision on her claim for benefits. The text of the AOJ’s request to the SSA, and any necessary follow-up requests, should make clear that the records requested include copies of the appellant's application to the SSA and the SSA decision. If the requested records are found to be unavailable, this should be noted in the claims file and the Veteran should be notified that the AOJ could not obtain any records from SSA. 2. Write to the Veteran and offer her another opportunity to authorize the release of any outstanding medical records which she believes are relevant to her claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder, including the records of L.P., previously identified by her as a psychiatrist in private practice, who treated her in Brooklyn, New York in 1980 or 1981. After sending the letter, the AOJ should wait a reasonable period for the Veteran to respond. The AOJ should make reasonable efforts to obtain copies of any potentially relevant records identified by the Veteran in her response. 3. Obtain and associate with the claims file copies of all of the Veteran’s VA treatment records since August 2020. 4. The AOJ should carefully review all new information obtained as a result of the efforts described above and then consider the potential need for further development, including, if appropriate, a new VA examination or expert opinion concerning the probable etiology of the Veteran’s current psychiatric disorder. Marissa Caylor Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Nye, 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.