BVA Case 21-8248: Ptsd

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · January 4,2023 · PIETSCH, Judge

Outcome
Unknown
Decision Date
January 4,2023
Judge
PIETSCH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PtsdDepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackHearing_LossTinnitusHeadacheSkinRespiratory

Issues on Appeal

SmcService ConnectionReopenTdiuHearing LossPtsd

Why It Was Decided This Way

In a July 2017 rating decision,the RO declined to reopen the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder,claimed as nerves, depression,anxiety,and post-traumatic stress disorder,because the evidence was not new and material.

The Board found that the relevant evidence added since the February 1970 rating decision, including postservice private treatment records and the June 2017 VA examination,showed that the appellant had been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder.

The examiner opined that the veteran's diagnosis was unspecified depressive disorder and the diagnosis was not related to,aggravated by,or secondary to his military service.

Pena-Davila with 4 unspecified depressive disorder,concluding that it was not related to or aggravated by service.

But the Board found that the January 2020 examiner had not addressed the etiology of panic disorder,phobia,anxiety,PTSD,and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood as directed by the November 2018 remand order.

The Board found an addendum opinion was necessary to address the etiology of the veteran's other acquired psychiatric disorders other than depressive disorder.

December 2021 Board Decision In the December 2021 decision on appeal,the Board denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder,finding that the veteran's current psychiatric disorder was not caused 5 by his active service,including the panic attacks and depression he contended he experienced while he was stationed in Korea .

The Board found that though it did not literally follow the November 2020 Board's directions, the November 2020 VA examination report and opinion discussed the veteran's December 2016 statement and substantially complied with the Board's prior remand order.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonCaluza v. BrownCoker v. PeakeDyment v. WestFrankel v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiHarris v. DerwinskiMiller v. WilkieMiller v. WillkieMonzingo v. ShinsekiSee Coker v. NicholsonSee Donnellan v. ShinsekiSee Dyment v. PrincipiSee Hilkert v. WestSee Kahana v. ShinsekiSee Washington v. NicholsonSmith v. WilkieStefl v. NicholsonStegall v. West

Denial Type

Credibility|Not New Material|Inadequate Exam

Find Similar Precedent for Your Claim

VetAid's analyzer maps your claim against thousands of real Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions like this one — surfacing the exact case law that supports your arguments.

Run my claim through VetAid →