Citation Nr: 21026842 Decision Date: 05/04/21 Archive Date: 05/04/21 DOCKET NO. 16-11 698 DATE: May 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for anxiety is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1987 to July 1990. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 2015 rating decision. In April 2019, the Veteran and his spouse testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a Board videoconference hearing. A copy of the transcript is of record. In September 2019 and December 2020, the Board remanded the matter for further development, to include obtaining a VA examination and medical opinions. Entitlement to service connection for anxiety is remanded. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for anxiety at this time. The Veteran was most recently afforded a VA medical opinion in January 2021. While the examiner opined that the Veteran's anxiety was less likely than not related to service, the examiner's opinion appears to be based on an inaccurate premise and is therefore inadequate. Specifically, the examiner erroneously found that the Veteran's report of chest pain on a Dental Questionnaire occurred in June 1982, prior to a December 1987 parachute jump. As such, the examiner explained that the report of chest pain could not be a symptom of anxiety from the parachute jump. The December 2020 Board remand and the January 2021 examination request from VA both note that the Dental Questionnaire is dated in January 1988, not June 1982. Furthermore, the Board notes that the Veteran was not in service in June 1982. Therefore, it is not clear that the examiner reviewed the Veteran's claims file or the Board remand directives. As there is not yet an adequate VA opinion that addresses the nature and etiology of the Veteran's anxiety, the Board finds that a remand is warranted for a new VA medical opinion. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician as to the Veteran's anxiety. The examiner must review the claims file. An in-person examination is not necessary unless deemed so by the examiner. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: Is the Veteran's anxiety at least as likely as not related to service? Provide a rationale to support the opinion(s). Although a complete review of the claims file is required, the examiner's attention is drawn to the Veteran's service personnel records showing receipt of a parachute badge in December 1987, a January 1988 Dental Questionnaire in which the Veteran reported chest pain, a May 2014 VA Form 21-0781 (Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in which the Veteran detailed an incident during jump school, and the December 2019 VA examination report noting that the Veteran experiences intense episodes of anxiety when he is exposed to heights. In providing the requested opinion, consider the Veteran's description of his in-service symptoms as well as his post-service symptoms. If there is any medical reason to accept or reject the proposition that the Veteran's reported symptoms in service and thereafter represented the onset of his current disability, this should be noted. Stated another way, do the Veteran's reports about his symptoms align with how the currently diagnosed disability is known to develop or are the Veteran's reports generally inconsistent with medical knowledge or implausible? 2. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated, the Veteran's claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the claim remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). (Continued on next page) An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Owen, 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.