Citation Nr: 21028829 Decision Date: 05/12/21 Archive Date: 05/12/21 DOCKET NO. 15-06 668A DATE: May 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial disability rating for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include generalized anxiety disorder, in excess of 30 percent prior to January 29, 2014 and in excess of 50 percent thereafter is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND As a preliminary matter, the Veteran testified before a Veterans Law Judge in October 2017. This hearing was before a now-retired judge. In a February 2021 correspondence, the Veteran was given the opportunity to request another hearing and was notified that if he did not provide a response in 30 days, it would be assumed that he did not want another hearing. In March 2021, the Veteran responded that he did not want another hearing. The Board will therefore proceed. This case was previously before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) and was denied in a March 2018 decision. The Veteran appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a November 2018 Order, the Court vacated and remanded the March 2018 decision pursuant to the terms of a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) by the parties. The November 2018 JMPR directed the Board to obtain a clarifying opinion or new examination as the August 2013 and January 2014 VA examinations were deemed inadequate. The Board remanded the case in October 2020 for additional development. Having reviewed the record, the Board finds that remand is warranted for an addendum opinion. The Veteran was afforded an examination and addendum opinion in November 2020 to determine the severity of his acquired psychiatric disorder for the period prior to and from January 29, 2014. In a November 2020 VA examination report, symptoms such as depressed mood and disturbances of mood and motivation were noted. However, it is unclear whether these are current symptoms or symptoms dating back to the appeal period from January 29, 2014. As such, remand is warranted for clarification. Additionally, in a November 2020 VA addendum opinion, the examiner listed symptoms that were present prior to January 24, 2014. However, the opinion lacks clarity as she noted that these symptoms, as well as the Veteran's level of occupational and social impairment, resolved with the resolution of his cancers in 1997 and 2009. This indicates that these symptoms and resulting impairment resolved in 2009, years prior to the appeal period, which is from July 16, 2013 to January 29, 2014. Thus, the Board finds remand is warranted for clarification. On remand, the examiner should clarify whether the symptoms noted in the November 2020 VA examination report have been present since January 29, 2014. Additionally, the examiner should clarify whether the symptoms and level of impairment noted in the November 2020 VA addendum opinion resolved in 2009, or were present and accurately approximates the symptoms and level of impairment for the period from July 16, 2013 to January 29, 2014. Any outstanding VA treatment records from December 2020 to present should be obtained and associated with the record. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain the Veteran's VA treatment records for the period from December 2020 to present. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from the November 2020 VA examiner, or an appropriate substitute, regarding the severity of the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder. The examiner should provide the following opinions: a) Clarify whether the symptoms noted in the November 2020 VA examination report have been present since January 29, 2014. If not, then the examiner must provide an opinion concerning the nature and severity of the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disability from January 29, 2014 to present. b) Clarify whether the symptoms and level of impairment noted in the November 2020 VA addendum opinion (1) resolved in 2009, or (2) were present and accurately approximates the symptoms and level of impairment of the disability for the entire period prior to January 29, 2014. If the examiner determines that a new examination is necessary to provide the above opinions, then the Veteran should be afforded the opportunity for another examination. (continued on next page) TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Vang, Stephanie 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.