BVA Case 19-5724: Ptsd

She also argues in her initial brief that an August 1990 rating decision never addressed whether this evidence from 1989 and 1990 was new and material evidence within the meaning of 38 C.

In a June 2004 decision, the Board remanded the issues on appeal,to include the issue whether new and material evidence has been received sufficient to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder other than PTSD,and the issues of entitlement to (1)service connection for PTSD;(2) service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder characterized as esophagitis and gastritis;(3)service connection for a right knee disability;and (4) a compensable disability rating for low back pain secondary to spondylolysis without radiculitis or radiculopathy,for additional development.

In a March 2008 decision,the Board denied the claim for an increased rating for lumbar spine disorder,evaluated as 20%from February 23,1999,to September 26,2003, and 40%after September 26,2003.

In February 2011, the RO,in pertinent part, denied the petition to reopen the claim for service connection for schizophrenia, paranoid type on the basis that the evidence submitted is not new and material.

In the April 2012 decision,the Board determined that new and material evidence to reopen the previously denied claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD had been received,and granted service connection for schizophrenia, finding that Mr.

According to the appellant,during the 1-year appeal period following the September 1989 decision,the veteran submitted new evidence of medical treatment for his psychiatric disorder dated in 1989 and 1990, and the August 1990 rating decision never addressed whether this was new and material evidence within the meaning of 38 C.

2014),when evidence is received during the one-year appeal period, 'VA must provide a determination that is directly responsive to the new submission and [determine whether it constitutes new and material evidence] and that,until it does so,the claim at issue remains open.

The appellant further notes that the record reflects that the VA did not obtain the 1990 treatment records from the VAMC,nor did it ever address whether this evidence is new and material evidence within the meaning of 38 U.