Citation Nr: 24012018 Decision Date: 03/14/24 Archive Date: 03/14/24 DOCKET NO. 18-48 291 DATE: March 14, 2024 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and unspecified mood disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1999 to July 2002 This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In April 2022, the Veteran appeared at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The Veteran's claims were previously remanded by the Board in a July 2022 decision. The Board finds that the RO has substantially complied with the July 2022 Board remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and unspecified mood disorder is remanded. The Veteran contends that his current acquired psychiatric disorder is due to an incident that occurred during service. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in December 2023. The examiner concluded that the Veteran did not have a current psychiatric disorder. While the examiner noted the VA diagnosis of PTSD in their discussion, they did not address the diagnosis of unspecified mood disorder and whether the Veteran's reported symptoms were manifestations of an unspecified mood disorder. See Nieves-Rodriquez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008) (A medical opinion is inadequate to decide a claim if it does not consider all the relevant evidence of record). Furthermore, the examiner did not provide an opinion regarding whether the Veteran had an acquired psychiatric disorder at any time during the pendency of the claim. The Board notes the Veteran initially filed his claim for entitlement to service connection for anxiety, insomnia, PTSD, and depression in March 2016. The Board notes that the Veteran's VA medical records reflect treatment for an acquired psychiatric disorder in 2018. As the examination is inadequate, remand is required for a new examination with opinion. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (holding that once VA undertakes an examination, it must provide an adequate one). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated treatment records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for the claimed acquired psychiatric disorder with an examiner other than the one who conducted the December 2023 examination. The examiner must review the claims file including the Veteran's personnel record with notations of depressed mood, trouble sleeping, and excessive worry. If a diagnosis cannot be provided but the Veteran's condition manifests in symptoms that cause functional impairment, then the examiner should consider them a "disability" for the purpose of providing the requested opinion(s) below. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: 1. Does the Veteran have an acquired psychiatric disorder, or has he had one at any time during the pendency of his claim? 2. If so, is any acquired psychiatric disorder at least as likely as not related to service, including the claimed assault in service, or having its onset in service? Provide a rationale to support the opinions. In providing the requested opinion, consider the Veteran's description of the in-service injury and symptoms as well as post-service symptoms. If there is any medical reason to accept or reject the proposition that the Veteran's reported injury and symptoms in service and thereafter represented the onset of the current disability, this should be noted. Stated another way, do the Veteran's reports about the 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? L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M.D. Taylor, 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.