Citation Nr: 21030818 Decision Date: 05/19/21 Archive Date: 05/19/21 DOCKET NO. 13-05 561 DATE: May 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The veteran had active service from May 1981 to May 1985. In November 2019, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decided the issues addressed in this remand. The Veteran appealed. In October 2020 the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the Court) granted a joint motion for remand (JMFR), vacating the Boards November 2019 decision and remanded the issues for further development. The Court determined that the Board erred when it did not specifically address the Veteran's complaints of irritated, dry, red eyes in his 2012 VA eye examination. Moreover, the Court determined that the Board erred when it did not address the error in the July 2015 VA addendum opinion. In that opinion, the examiner did not address the Veteran's documented eye complaints noted above when rendering his final opinion. Concerning the Veteran's PTSD claim, the Court also determined that the Board erred when it denied the Veteran's PTSD claim without first advising the Veteran that in cases of reported in-service personal assault, supporting evidence from other non-service sources or evidence of behavior changes may be submitted by the Veteran under 3.304(f)(5). Thus, additional development must be undertaken. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 1. Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder is remanded. As noted above, a remand is necessary to obtain a VA addendum opinion and examination for the July 2015 VA examiner to address the Veteran's complaints of irritated, dry, and red eyes in his 2012 VA eye conditions examination. 2. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD is remanded. As noted above, a remand is necessary to provide the Veteran with the required notice concerning the types of evidence that might corroborate his reported in-service personal assault stressor as required under 3.304(f)(5). Thereafter, if records are obtained, they should be forwarded to the August 2015 VA examiner, or similar examiner, for an addendum opinion concerning the cause of the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. As necessary, ask the Veteran to identify, and provide appropriate releases for, any care providers who may possess new or additional evidence pertinent to the issues on appeal. If he provides the necessary release(s), assist him in obtaining the records identified. Any new or additional psychiatric or eye disorder (i.e., non-duplicative) evidence received should be associated with the record. 2. Please provide the Veteran and his representative with a VCAA notice letter informing them of the information and evidence necessary to substantiate a claim. This should include the required notice concerning the types of evidence that might corroborate his reported in-service personal assault stressor as required under 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5). Additionally, he should be provided with a reasonable period of time to submit any relevant information. 3. Return the Veteran's claims file to the examiner who offered the July 2015 VA eye disorder addendum opinion and the examiner that offered the August 2015 VA psychiatric examination so a supplemental opinion may be provided (or similarly situated examiners as appropriate). The entire claims file must be made available to the particular examiner for review, and the examiner must specifically acknowledge receipt and review of these materials in any reports generated. A new examination is only required if deemed necessary by the examiner. After a thorough review of the medical history the examiner is requested to prepare a detailed opinion which answers the following: (a) Taking into consideration the Veteran's STR's, lay statements, and post service VA and private treatment records, is it as likely as not (that is a probability of 50 percent or greater) that the onset of the Veteran's eye disorder is related to an in-service event or occurrence? The examiner should address the Veteran's complaints of irritated, dry, and red eyes in his 2012 VA eye conditions examination. If the onset of an eye disorder is not found to be related to the Veteran's time in-service, that should be specifically set out with the factors considered in making that determination. Specifically, it should be determined whether chronic dry eye is present. (b) Taking into consideration the Veteran's STR's, lay statements, and post service VA and private treatment records, is it as likely as not (that is a probability of 50 percent or greater) that the onset of the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD is related to an in-service event or occurrence? The examiner should address any additional evidence submitted by the Veteran that might corroborate his reported in-service personal assault stressor. If the onset of an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD is not found to be related to the Veteran's time in-service, that should be specifically set out with the factors considered in making that determination. Please provide a complete rationale for all opinions entered and review the entire record including lay statements. If an examiner cannot provide any of the requested opinions, he/she must affirm that all procurable and assembled data was fully considered, and a detailed rationale must be provided for why an opinion cannot be rendered. 4. The AOJ must ensure that the examiner's report complies with this remand and answers the questions presented in the request. The AOJ must also ensure that the examiner documents consideration of the electronic claims file. If the report is insufficient, the AOJ should take corrective action. MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Harris, Michael E. 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.