Citation Nr: 21012600 Decision Date: 03/04/21 Archive Date: 03/04/21 DOCKET NO. 11-28 430 DATE: March 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include as secondary to the service-connected disabilities, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the United States Navy from September 1964 to April 1968. These matters are on appeal from a March 2010 rating decision. In September 2018 and October 2020, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) remanded the appeal for additional evidentiary development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include as secondary to the service-connected disabilities, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is remanded. In October 2020, the Board remanded the appeal to obtain an adequate medical opinion. The VA examiner was directed to provide medical opinions addressing the etiology of the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder and the Veteran’s lay statements regarding mental health treatment for 20 years. With regard to PTSD, a November 2020 VA examiner offered a negative opinion. However, her rationale was predicated, in part, on a finding that she could not definitely state that the Veteran currently has PTSD. This opinion is inadequate because it applies the incorrect evidentiary standard. September 2015 VA treatment records show a diagnosis from a psychologist for delayed onset PTSD. As explained in the October 2020 remand, in the absence of medical evidence indicating that the positive PTSD diagnoses are erroneous, the Board is inclined to find that the Veteran has had a current diagnosis of PTSD during the appeal period. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007). The direct service connection opinion regarding the Veteran’s non-PTSD acquired psychiatric disorder is also inadequate. The VA examiner provided a negative opinion and her sole rationale was a lack of medical documentation. She failed to provide any rationale pertaining to the Veteran’s lay statements regarding treatment for mental health issues for 20 years. Finally, the VA examiner did not provide any secondary service connection opinions that addressed whether the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder are caused by his service-connected disabilities. The Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance with the October 2020 remand directives. A remand is required to obtain adequate VA medical opinions. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain a medical opinion from a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has contracted, regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder. The entire claims file should be reviewed, and the examiner should consider all lay statements submitted by the Veteran. Thereafter, the examiner should: (a) Determine all acquired psychiatric disorders that the Veteran has or has had since filing a claim in September 2009. (b) For PTSD, state whether the Veteran’s PTSD is related to military sexual trauma. (c) For any acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD, opine as to whether the disorder is at least as likely as not related to service. (d) For any acquired psychiatric disorder that has been manifested at any time since September 2009, opine as to whether the disorder is at least as likely as not due to or aggravated by a service-connected disability. A complete rationale should be provided for any opinion rendered. The examiner must address the September 2018 private treatment records noting diagnoses of major depressive disorder and PTSD, the diagnoses of PTSD in VA treatment records, and the lay statements submitted by the Veteran. 2. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefits sought are not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case   and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R.R. Watkins, 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.