BVA Case 23-6949: Ptsd

In the remand instructions,the Board noted that regarding the appellant's physical assault, the examiner should indicate whether any behavioral changes that occurred at or close in time to the alleged stressor incidents could possibly indicate the occurrence of one or more of the alleged in-service stressors.

In the May 2011 decision,the Board denied entitlement to service connection for PTSD, and remanded the claim for entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder other than PTSD.

With regard to her claimed PTSD,the Board found that the preponderance of the evidence was against a finding that PTSD was incurred or aggravated by service.

The Board noted that the September 2008 VA examiner took into account the multiple psychiatric diagnoses documented in the claims file and service treatment records and found that previous diagnoses of PTSD were rendered by physicians who did not have access to the [appellant's]claims file.

In the May 2018 decision,the Board found that new and material evidence,namely in the form of the April 2016 treatment report, had been received.

Thus,the Board found the appellant's previously denied claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD was reopened.

After taking into account the April 2016 treatment report and January 2018 VA examination report,the Board found the opinion provided by the January 2018 VA examiner to be highly probative regarding the nature and origin of the [appellant's] PTSD.

In correspondence dated on March 3,2022, the appellant,through her counsel,argued that the May 2011 Board decision contained CUE because the Board did not consider significant 'marker'evidence.