Citation Nr: 21014176 Decision Date: 03/11/21 Archive Date: 03/11/21 DOCKET NO. 16-06 999 DATE: March 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition to include a depressive disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from January 1943 to December 1945. The Veteran died in July 2017. The appellant is the Veteran’s surviving daughter. The matter was previously before the Board in June 2017 and December 2020. Most recently the claim was remanded for an addendum opinion addressing the Veteran’s lay statements as to the onset of symptoms related to his depressive disorder. An addendum opinion was associated with the file in December 2020. The claim has been returned to the Board for appellate review. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition to include a depressive disorder is remanded. A remand by the Board confers upon the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders. Where the remand orders of the Board were not complied with, the Board must ensure compliance. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). This obligation is mandatory, not discretionary. Regrettably, further remand is required to ensure compliance with the December 2020 remand directives. In the December 2020 remand, the Board requested an addendum opinion considering the Veteran’s lay statements that he sought treatment for psychiatric symptoms in 1947, that he had not been forthcoming to previous examiners about the extent and severity of his symptoms, and that he continued to wake at night with memories of combat. As noted, in December 2020, an addendum opinion was provided which included a negative nexus; however, the Board finds the opinion inadequate as the examiner once again simply reiterated the opinions and rationales of the May 2014 and March 2017 examiner. As it relates to the Veteran’s lay statements, the examiner stated, “it is a description of the stressor event as also documented in both previous MH C&P examinations.” The examiner goes on to restate the previous examiner’s rationale noting that the Veteran “did not demonstrate symptoms of PTSD or any other mental health diagnosis due to this event according to 2 very thorough C&P examinations and his VA medical record.” The examiner’s rationale reveals that she failed to consider the Veteran’s statements regarding onset of symptoms as early as 1947. The examiner also neglected to address the Veteran’s revelation that he was not wholly forthcoming with family members or the earlier examiners about the extent of his symptoms. Without providing any medical basis to doubt the Veteran’s statements, the examiner relied solely on the lack of medical evidence to support her opinion. Accordingly, the Board finds that another addendum opinion is necessary to ensure compliance with the December 2020 remand directives. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an opinion from an appropriate examiner to determine the etiology of the Veteran’s Other Specified Depressive Disorder. The Veteran’s claims file, including this REMAND, must be provided to the examiner for review. After review of the record, the examiner must specifically opine ast to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s diagnosed Other Specified Depressive Disorder was incurred in service or was otherwise related to any injury, disease, or event that occurred in service. For purposes of provided the medical opinion the examiner must consider the Veteran’s lay statements and assume he is a credible historian. The examiner must specifically address the Veteran’s statements that he had onset of psychiatric symptoms as early as 1947 and sought treatment with a psychiatrist for hallucinations and nightmares. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for any opinion offered, including discussion of the facts of this case and any medical studies or literature relied upon. If the examiner is unable to provide any requested opinion without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner must provide a reasoned explanation for such conclusion. 2. The AOJ must ensure that all medical opinion reports comply with this remand and the questions presented in the request. If the report is insufficient, it must be returned to the examiner for necessary corrective action, as appropriate. 3. Then re-adjudicate the claim. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Sherman Associate 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.