CAVC Case 12-1845: PTSD

For the reasons that follow,the Court will reverse the Board's finding that the veteran did not submit new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his 1 The Board referred to a VA regional office (RO)claims for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD and cancer due to asbestos exposure.

The RO found that the evidence obtained since the February 2006 denial was not new and material because it did not confirm [his] being assaulted during military service nor show a clinical diagnosis for [PTSD]as being related to military stressors.

In March 2009,the RO issued a Statement of the Case (SOC)finding that the veteran had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen his previously denied claim for service connection for PTSD because the evidence he submitted since the last final denial of that claim lack[ed]a verified clinical diagnosis of [PTSD],based on a verified stressor.

Initially,the Board found that VA had satisfied its duty to assist because it had obtained all relevant evidence 6 identified by the appellant.

The Board noted that the RO had not issued an SOC as to COPD but found that an SOC regarding that condition was not needed because [t]here is no evidence of record which reflects that the [v]eteran has a type of COPD other than emphysema or that he has filed a claim for another type of COPD.

The Board denied entitlement to TDIU based on asbestosis because the medical evidence of record,which the Board found more probative than the veteran's lay statements,indicated that asbestosis does not prevent him from performing sedentary work and any unemployability is attributable to his non-service- connected COPD/emphysema,PTSD,back disorders,and hypertension.

The appellant's request to reopen his previously denied claim for service connection for PTSD,the Board noted that the claim was initially denied because the veteran did not have a verified stressor[]and []the [February 2006]VA examination report was against a finding that [he] had PTSD.

The Board acknowledged that the newly received evidence reflects clinical evidence of a diagnosis of PTSD, but found that that evidence was not new and material because 7 it was cumulative of the PTSD diagnoses that were in the record at the time of the last final denial and did not provide[]any additional evidence to support [his]allegations of in-service assaults.