BVA Case 22-491: Depression

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · March 3,2023 · ALLEN, Judge

Outcome
Unknown
Decision Date
March 3,2023
Judge
ALLEN, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackCervicalKneeSleep_ApneaHipHeadacheRespiratory

Issues on Appeal

Service ConnectionKnee ConditionSleep Apnea

Why It Was Decided This Way

3 Because the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases supporting its findings denying service connection for both a psychiatric disability and OSA, and because it failed to ensure the duty to assist was satisfied with respect to the right knee condition,we will set aside those parts of the Board's decision and remand the matters for readjudication consistent with this decision.

4 The Secretary's duty to assist requires that he provide a VA medical examination to a claimant when there is (1)competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability;(2)evidence establishing that an event,injury,or disease occurred in service or,for certain diseases,manifestation of the disease during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies;and (3)an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of the disability may be associated with the veteran's service or with another service-connected disability;but (4)insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim.

Psychiatric Disability In the decision on appeal,the Board denied entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability because appellant presented normally on evaluation and denied depression, 4 38 U.

9 The Board found that appellant reported agitation,anxiety,and depression in 2018 and that she had a diagnosis of an anxiety disorder.

10 But the Board concluded that no evidence indicated any diagnosedcondition was related to service.

11 The Board also concluded that no VA examination was necessary to determine the etiology of appellant's psychiatric disability because no evidence indicated a nexus between the condition and service.

13 We agree with the parties that remand is required,but not for all the reasons appellant asserts.

The parties agree that the Board failed to address appellant's June 2020 report of a mental health concern of stress related to redeployment to Bosnia and her August 2020 report of experiencingtrauma duringservice when she was taken to a hospital in El Salvador and was unable to understand Spanish.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonBest v. PrincipiBrannon v. WestBreniser v. ShinsekiBrokowski v. ShinsekiBuczynski v. ShinsekiFagan v. ShinsekiFrost v. ShulkinGarner v. TranGilbert v. DerwinskiHorn v. ShinsekiLendon v. NicholsonLocklear v. NicholsonLoving v. NicholsonQuirin v. ShinsekiRobinson v. PeakeRobinson v. ShinsekiRodriguez v. PeakeSee Ardison v. BrownSee Jensen v. BrownSee Robinson v. ShinsekiShinseki v. SandersSlaughter v. McStefl v. NicholsonTadlock v. McTucker v. WestWagner v. PrincipiWells v. Principi

Denial Type

No Nexus|Duty To Assist

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 →