Citation Nr: 21057833 Decision Date: 09/16/21 Archive Date: 09/16/21 DOCKET NO. 18-13 600 DATE: September 16, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, namely unspecified depressive disorder, as secondary to esophageal stricture with eosinophilic esophagitis, gastrointestinal reflux disease (GERD) and traumatic brain injury is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT The Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, namely unspecified depressive disorder, is proximately due to his service-connected esophageal stricture with eosinophilic esophagitis, GERD and traumatic brain injury. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, namely unspecified depressive disorder, as secondary to his service connected esophageal stricture with eosinophilic esophagitis, GERD and traumatic brain injury are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served in active duty in the United States Navy from September 2002 to September 2007. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified in a hearing with the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in July 2021 and the hearing transcript has been attached to the file. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, namely unspecified depressive disorder, as secondary to esophageal stricture with eosinophilic esophagitis, GERD and traumatic brain injury, is granted. The Veteran contends that his unspecified depressive disorder is the result of his service-connected disabilities to include GERD, esophageal stricture with eosinophilic esophagitis and traumatic brain injury. See July 2021 Hearing Transcript. Direct causation is not contended. Turning to the question of whether there is an etiological relationship between the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder and his service connected esophageal stricture with eosinophilic esophagitis, GERD and traumatic brain injury, the Board notes that the record contains two etiology opinions which must be considered and weighed. See Hayes v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 60, 69-70 (1993). When faced with conflicting medical opinions, the Board may favor one medical opinion over the other. See Evans v. West, 12 Vet. App. 22, 30 (1998). The Board will consider each of these opinions below. A September 2014 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's depression is less as likely as not proximately due to or the result of his service-connected conditions, namely GERD and a traumatic brain injury. The examiner reasoned that she was unable to find evidence in the record linking the Veteran's depression to his current service-connected conditions and explained that his in-service head injury was not severe enough to render ongoing cognitive or psychological sequelae many years later. The examiner noted that the Veteran was initially diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression not otherwise specified, and anxiety not otherwise specified in 2012, that the Veteran was only twice by a mental health professional for depression in 2013 and there was no mention of a traumatic brain injury or GERD, or any other service-connected disability contributing to his depressed mood. The examiner noted that based on recent records, the most appropriate diagnosis for the Veteran is unspecified depressive disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder that the Veteran's attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is considered a preexisting condition as he was treated for this prior to service, and there is no evidence to support that it has been exacerbated beyond its natural course of progression during the service or by his service-connected disabilities. The examiner concluded that the etiology of the Veteran's depression is uncertain, although likely driven by poor discharge adjustment, serious academic difficulties, untreated attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and unemployment. However, this opinion did not address whether the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder was secondary to his now service-connected esophageal stricture. He was afforded a VA examination in May 2014 in which the examiner opined that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's depression is due to the result of service connected GERD and traumatic brain injury. The examiner reasoned that the Veteran reports that he began experiencing symptoms of depression following his diagnosis of GERD and the incident causing his traumatic brain injury. Although the May 2014 VA medical opinion contain only a brief rationale, the Board notes that it is prohibited from developing additional evidence for the purpose of obtaining evidence against a claimant's case. See Mariano v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 305 (2003). There is no contrary probative opinion of record. The Board also notes that the September 2014 VA examiner opined that the etiology of the Veteran's depression was uncertain. In conclusion, the Board finds, with resolution of doubt in the Veteran's favor, service connection is warranted for unspecified depressive disorder. The evidence is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, namely unspecified depressive disorder as secondary to his service-connected esophageal stricture with eosinophilic esophagitis, GERD and a traumatic brain injury. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). The appeal is therefore granted. KRISTY L. ZADORA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Adeyemi, 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.