Citation Nr: 21023303 Decision Date: 04/20/21 Archive Date: 04/20/21 DOCKET NO. 11-13 052 DATE: April 20, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1964 to December 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2010 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In March 2017, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the proceeding is associated with the electronic claims file. In February 2021, the Board remanded the matter to obtain an addendum VA opinion to determine whether the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder is secondary to his service-connected tinnitus. Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Veteran contends that his acquired psychiatric disorder is related to service. Alternatively, he contends that his depression is caused by service-connected tinnitus. See December 2020 VA examination. He was afforded a VA examination in December 2020, wherein he was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, recurrent mild with anxious distress. An addendum opinion was obtained in February 20201. The examiner stated that although the Veteran mentioned tinnitus as a cause of his depression, during previous examinations, he also indicated that his depression relates to how he was treated in the military and to his chronic arthritic pain. The examiner concluded that there is no consistent evidence that the Veteran’s current depression is related to or caused by, or proximately due to, his tinnitus. The Board regrets the further delay but finds that a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran full consideration of his claim. The addendum opinion is inadequate because the examiner improperly bases his/her conclusion on the Veteran’s assertions that his depression may have multiple causes, to include tinnitus. Contentions of multiple theories of entitlement is permitted by the VA and such assertions, without more, should not be the basis of a negative finding regarding one such relationship. Additionally, the examiner appears to dismiss the current diagnosis of depression on the basis that the Veteran previously denied depression. A new addendum opinion is needed to provide a detailed rationale on whether the depression is caused by or proximately due to his service-connected tinnitus. Accordingly, the matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records. 2. Thereafter, obtain a VA addendum opinion. If the examiner finds that another physical examination is necessary, one should be provided. Following a review of the record and a copy of this remand, the examiner is asked to opine as to the following regarding the Veteran’s diagnosed major depressive disorder: a) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s major depressive disorder began during or is otherwise etiologically related to service? b) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s major depressive disorder is proximately due to, the result of, his service-connected tinnitus? c) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s major depressive disorder has been aggravated beyond normal progression by his service-connected tinnitus? A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions expressed. The examiner is asked to specifically address the relationship, if any, between the Veteran’s current diagnosis of depression and service-connected tinnitus.   If an opinion cannot be offered without resort to mere speculation, the examiner must indicate why this is the case and what additional evidence, if any, would allow for a more definitive opinion. Nathaniel J. Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Wilson, 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.