Citation Nr: 21012836 Decision Date: 03/05/21 Archive Date: 03/05/21 DOCKET NO. 18-55 223A DATE: March 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability other than posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1961 to August 1965. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in May 2017 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board remanded the issue on appeal for additional development in September 2020. In October 2020 VA treatment records were obtained and a new examination was provided. As such, the directives have been substantially complied with and the appeal is again properly before the Board. D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In October 2020 the Board also remanded the issue of entitlement to service connection for PTSD. While on remand, the RO granted service connection for PTSD in a November 2020 rating decision. Ab v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). As this constitutes a full grant of the benefits sought as to that issue, it is no longer on appeal before the Board. The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in July 2020. A transcript of the hearing is of record. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability. VA obtained an opinion concerning the etiology of any diagnosed psychiatric disabilities other than PTSD in October 2020. While the examiner stated that it was less likely than not that the diagnosed generalized anxiety disorder was causally related to service, no supporting rationale for this determination was provided. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). While the examiner provided a lengthy rationale supporting the opinion concerning PTSD, this rationale does not apply to or support the opinion provided concerning the generalized anxiety disorder. As there is no supporting rationale for the opinion, it is inadequate for adjudicatory purposes and a remand is necessary for an addendum opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from the examiner who provided the October 2020 VA psychiatric examination, or another appropriate medical professional if the examiner is unavailable. The examiner should answer the following: Is it at least as likely as not (a fifty percent probability or greater) that the generalized anxiety disorder is causally related to the Veteran’s active service? A detailed rationale for the opinion must be provided. The examiner is reminded that the term “as likely as not” does not mean “within the realm of medical possibility,” but rather that the evidence of record is so evenly divided that, in the examiner’s expert opinion, it is as medically sound to find in favor of the proposition as against it. If the examiner is unable to offer the requested opinion, it is essential that the examiner offer a rationale for the conclusion that an opinion could not be provided without resort to speculation, together with a statement as to whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382 (2010). LESLEY A. REIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Wendell, 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.