13-14 762
13-14 762
| Board of Vet. App. | May 31, 2017Background
- Veteran served on active duty Feb–Oct 1972 and previously filed for service connection for a "nervous disorder."
- RO denied reopening the nervous disorder claim in May 2010; Board reopened and remanded in June 2015 for development.
- Since reopening, additional psychiatric diagnoses have appeared (PTSD, generalized anxiety disorder, depressive disorder), and the Board broadened the claim accordingly under Clemons.
- A July 2015 VA opinion exists, and the Veteran later submitted a Feb 2017 letter from a VA psychiatrist stating PTSD was related to service and that an in-service psychotic episode was an acute stress reaction, creating potential conflict in medical opinions.
- Private treatment records the Veteran reported (pre- and post-2015 VA treatment) have not been obtained; VA release forms (21-4142/21-4142a) were not returned or may not have been provided.
- The Board remanded the appeal for additional development: obtain outstanding records, provide releases, obtain/addendum VA medical opinion addressing preexistence, aggravation, and nexus (with clear rationale), and ensure substantial compliance before readjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder (PTSD, GAD, depressive disorder, nervous condition) should be granted | Veteran contends psychiatric disabilities are related to military service and has submitted VA psychiatrist opinion linking PTSD to service and describing in‑service psychotic episode as stress reaction | VA maintains development incomplete; earlier VA examiner reached conclusions not fully reconciled with later psychiatrist opinion; missing private and post‑2015 VA records | Remanded for further development: obtain records, provide releases, obtain/addendum VA exam/opinion addressing preexistence, aggravation, and nexus with full rationale; re‑adjudicate after compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (holds AOJ must comply with Board remand directives and provide substantial compliance)
- Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (scope of a mental health claim includes any mental disability reasonably encompassed by the claim)
- Laposky v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 331 (discusses the clear and unmistakable evidentiary standard)
- Vanserson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 254 (defines "clear and unmistakable" as undebatable evidence)
- Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141 (requires substantial compliance with remand instructions)