Citation Nr: 21025113 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 14-09 219A DATE: April 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an acquired psychiatric disability, to include as secondary to an in-service assault, is remanded. Entitlement to eligibility for treatment purposes for an acquired psychiatric disability pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1702 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from April 1963 to April 1966. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2012 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In December 2019, the Board remanded the case for additional development and it now returns for appellate review. While on remand, a July 2020 rating decision granted entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities, and, as the full benefit sought on appeal has been awarded, such issue is no longer before the Board. 1. Entitlement to an acquired psychiatric disability, to include as secondary to an in-service assault. The Veteran reports that he suffers from an anxiety disorder. See Statement in Support of Claim, dated February 2013; Statement in Support of Claim, dated December 2010. He also reports that he suffered a personal assault while in service. See Private Exam, dated October 2019; Statement in Support of Claim, dated March 2013; Statement in Support of Claim, dated December 2010. The Veteran claims that he has suffered from an anxiety disorder since that time. Moreover, in a November 2019 VA treatment record, he reported that he received services from VA psychiatry starting in 2013 due to psychological distress (symptoms of depression and anxiety) secondary to death of daughter and disability. In this regard, the Veteran stated that he felt down or depressed secondary to his disability and not being able to do the things he wants to do. In accordance with the December 2019 Board remand, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in October 2020. At such time the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with unspecified depressive disorder. However, the examiner concluded that the Veteran’s unspecified depressive disorder was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the Veteran’s in-service assault. As rationale, the examiner explained that the Veteran’s unspecified depressive disorder is due to finding his daughter deceased in 2013. The examiner also concluded that the Veteran did not meet criteria for PTSD. However, as stated above, the Veteran has continuously reported that he was personally assaulted in service, and he has suffered from an acquired psychiatric disorder since that time. See December 2010 and March 2013 Statement in Support of Claim. The Board notes that the examiner did not address the Veteran’s reports of symptoms since service. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007); (an examination must consider lay evidence of in-service incurrence or continuity of symptomatology since service). Moreover, the Veteran reported feeling down or depressed secondary to his disability and not being able to do the things he wants to do. Consequently, the Board finds that an addendum opinion is necessary to decide this claim. Schroeder v. West, 212 F.3d 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the Board is required to consider all theories of entitlement to VA benefits that are either raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the record). 2. Entitlement to eligibility for treatment purposes for an acquired psychiatric disability pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1702. The Board finds that the issue of treatment for an acquired psychiatric disability pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1702 is inextricably intertwined with the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, which is being remanded for further adjudication. Therefore, a final decision on the issue of eligibility for treatment purposes for an acquired psychiatric disability pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1702 cannot be rendered at this time. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991) (two issues are “inextricably intertwined” when they are so closely tied together that the final decision on one issue cannot be rendered until a decision on the other issues has been rendered). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Return the record to an appropriate VA examiner in order to provide an opinion for the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder. The claims file and this Remand should be reviewed by the examiner. The need for an additional examination of the Veteran is left to the discretion of the clinician selected to write the addendum opinion. Following a review of the record, please address the following inquiries: (A) Identify all diagnosable psychiatric disabilities attributable to the Veteran during the period on appeal. (B) The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether itis at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorder is causally related to the Veteran’s active service to include his credible account of the in-service assault. (C) Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder is proximately due to or aggravated by a service-connected disability? The term “aggravation” in the above context refers to “any incremental increase in disability - any additional impairment of earning capacity -in non-service-connected disabilities resulting from service-connected conditions regardless of its permanence.” In rendering an opinion, the examiner should specifically review and consider the lay statements of the Veteran regarding his service and that he has suffered from an acquired psychiatric disorder since that time. The examiner should also consider the Veteran’s reports that he felt down or depressed secondary to his disability and not being able to do things he wants to do. 2. Readjudicate all issues on appeal, to include entitlement to psychiatric treatment pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1702. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Brennae L. Brooks, 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.