Citation Nr: 21042358 Decision Date: 07/12/21 Archive Date: 07/12/21 DOCKET NO. 19-29 909 DATE: July 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder (DO), to include anxiety is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1975 to November 1976. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2020, the Board denied this issue which was appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). Pursuant to a Joint Motion, the CAVC issued a January 2021 Order to vacate the May 2020 denial and remanded the underlying claim to the Board for readjudication. See January 2021, Order granting Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMR). (The Veteran did not contest that part of the Board's decision that denied entitlement to service connection for a nasal fracture and residuals.) 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric DO, to include anxiety is remanded. The Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for his acquired psychiatric DO, to include as due to a fractured nose or laceration of left wrist. He asserts two soldiers tried to sexually assault him after he was intoxicated, but he fought them off. Also, the Veteran contends that his acquired psychiatric DO is secondary to his service-connected hand and arm conditions. The Veteran has diagnoses of: alcohol use DO in early remission; cognitive DO unspecified; unspecified anxiety DO; mild cognitive disorder; personality change due to organic DO; anxiety; alcohol withdrawal syndrome; alcohol dependence with related anxiety; cocaine dependence with cocaine induced anxiety; schizophrenic, paranoid and other psychotic DOs; organic mental DOs (chronic brain syndrome); substance induced mood DO; and antisocial personality DO with borderline features. The parties to the JMR agreed that remand is warranted for the Board to obtain a medical opinion that provides an adequate rationale as to whether the Veteran's current disability is related to (1) the in-service wrist-cutting injury or (2) his in-service complaints or treatment for a psychiatric condition. Accordingly, a remand is warranted pursuant to the terms of the JMR. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records dated since September 2019. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion, from an appropriate clinician, to the April 2017 VA examination report regarding the Veteran's acquired psychiatric DO. If deemed necessary by the examiner, afford the Veteran a VA examination. The file must be provided to the examiner for review. Please opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that any acquired psychiatric DO is related to (1) the in-service wrist-cutting injury or (2) the in-service complaints or treatment for a psychiatric condition. In formulating an opinion, the examiner should specifically consider and address: *the Veteran's November 1975 service treatment record (STR) noting the in-service wrist-cutting injury, * the Veteran's May 1976 STR noting the Veteran is experiencing anxiety about the surgery in the AM, *the June 1976 Report of Medical History (RMH) positive response of depression or excessive worry, and nervous trouble of any sort, *the July 1976 STR noting "psych consult ordered. Patient appeared to accept this well as he came to desk for the paper for the doctor to fill out for a shrink", and *the March 1978 RMH positive response of depression or excessive worry, and nervous trouble of any sort. A complete rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. In the event the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to speculation, it is essential that the examiner provide a rationale for this conclusion (e.g., lack of sufficient information/evidence, the limits of medical knowledge, etc.). (continued on next page) TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Edwin B. Esmenda, 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.