BVA Case 19-3131: Depression

In the same decision,the Board found that there was new and material evidenceto reopen a claim of serviceconnection for arthritis of the bilateral hands.

Lastly,the Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and found that serviceconnection for a psychiatric disorder to establish eligibility to treatment under 38 U.

On appellant�s service-connection claim for a bilateral shoulder disability and his claims for higher ratings for hypertension,contact dermatitis,and an eye condition,the Secretary concedes that the Board failed to ensure that VA satisfied its duty to assist.

In considering appellant�s service -connected contact dermatitis,the Secretary also acknowledges that the Board erred in failingto discuss whether a ppellant�s prescribed medication s were systemic therapies,potentially warranting a higher rating.

4 And the Secretary admits that the Board failed to address whether the evidence that appellant experiences a flare -up of symptoms four times per year,covering more than 75%of his body,constituted a �material change,� warranting a new exam.

Appellant also argues that the Board failed to ensure that VA satisfied its duty to help obtain VA treatment records from April 2008 and from January 2015 onward.

7 Because those files do not appear in the record and because the Board neglected to address this purported deficiency,the Court cannot tell whether VA satisfied its duty to assist as to those records.

Thus,the Court will remand for the Board to provide adequate reasons or bases that address whether VA satisfied its duty to assist.