BVA Case 23-4310: Depression

The Board found that neither the October 2020 nor the November 2020 examiner had adequately addressed whether VA had acted carelessly or negligently by not properly numbing the incision site, or whether a reasonable healthcare provider would have considered Mr.

The Board found its June 2022 directives had not been complied with because the examiner who provided the August and September 2022 opinions was not an appropriate clinician to opine as to the nature and etiology of Mr.

The timing of this makes his adjustment disorder less likely as not related to the treatment at issue.

The representative argued that the March 2023 medical opinion was inadequate because it failed to address the November 2020 medical opinion and appeared to be biased and/or accusatory given the examiner's statements that Mr.

In the May 2023 decision here on appeal,the Board found that there is no indication of carelessness,negligence,lack of proper skill,error in judgment,or similar instance of fault on the 9 Case:23-4310 Page: 10 of 15 Filed:11/14/2024 part of VA when it rendered treatment to Mr.

The Board found that the March 2023 psychiatrist's opinions failed to address notations of anxiety documented in Mr.

The Board also found that the opinions did not meaningfully discuss whether the appellant had a preexisting psychiatric disorder manifested by anxiety that was aggravated by the August 2015 procedure,but the Board determined that remanding to correct these deficiencies would not impact the ultimate disposition of the case: Even assuming that the [v]eteran did suffer a qualifying additional disability caused by surgical treatment furnished by VA,there is no evidence that the proximate cause of the Veteran�s disability was carelessness, negligence,lack of proper skill, error in judgment,or similar instance of fault on the part of VA,or an event not reasonably foreseeable.

The Board's determination regarding entitlement to compensation under section 1151 is a finding of fact that the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard of review.