MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER

Summary

The Veteran, a Marine Corps Veteran who served from August 1994 to February 1998, appeals the denial of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, specifically anxiety and depression, claimed as secondary to his service-connected lumbar spine, bilateral radiculopathy, and bilateral knee disabilities. The Veteran testified that his physical limitations from these service-connected conditions have profoundly impacted his life, leading to anxiety, depression, social isolation, and an inability to work or enjoy activities. He submitted a private Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) diagnosing major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. The private examiner opined that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's mental health conditions were the result of his service-connected back and knee disabilities, citing chronic pain and functional limitations as the basis for the nexus. The Board found this opinion to be probative and reasonably based, noting the absence of contrary evidence or a VA examination on the issue. Consequently, the Board granted service connection for the acquired psychiatric disorder as secondary to the Veteran's service-connected lumbar spine, bilateral radiculopathy, and bilateral knee disabilities.

Rationale

Private DBQ diagnosed major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.; Private examiner opined condition was at least as likely as not secondary to service-connected back and knee disabilities.; No negative evidence of record.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26017814
Decision Date: 02/26/26	Archive Date: 02/26/26

DOCKET NO. 201210-126200
DATE: February 26, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder (hereinafter acquired psychiatric disorder), as secondary to service-connected degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine, radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities, patellofemoral syndrome of the left knee, and right knee meniscal tear with degenerative arthritis (hereinafter service-connected lumbar spine, bilateral radiculopathy, and bilateral knee disabilities), is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

There is probative evidence that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder is secondary to his service-connected lumbar spine, bilateral radiculopathy, and bilateral knee disabilities.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, as secondary to service-connected lumbar spine, bilateral radiculopathy, and bilateral knee disabilities, have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from August 1994 to February 1998.

In a July 2020 rating decision, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denied entitlement to service connection for depression and anxiety.  The Veteran filed a timely December 2020 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request:  Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement NOD)), to the July 2020 rating decision, electing to be heard by a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) of the VA Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board); such took place in August 2024, a transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file.  

As the Veteran elected to be heard by a VLJ, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the July 2020 rating decision on appeal, mailed to the Veteran on July 13, 2020, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his attorney at the August 7, 2024, Board hearing or within 90 days following the hearing, by November 5, 2024.  38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (a).  

Despite the fully favorable decision  herein, if the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence.  38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.  If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered.  Id.  Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as anxiety and depression.

Service connection means that a Veteran has a current disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  See 38 U.S.C.         §§ 1101, 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a).  Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when the evidence shows that the disease was incurred in service.   See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d).

Service connection may also be granted for a disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disability.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (a).  When service connection is thus established for a secondary condition, the secondary condition shall be considered a part of the original condition.  Id.; Harder v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 183, 187 (1993).  The controlling regulation has been interpreted to permit a grant of service connection not only for disability caused by a service-connected disability, but for the degree of disability resulting from aggravation of a non-service-connected disability by a service-connected disability.  See Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995).

A layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his current symptomatology.  See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge).  The Board is charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence.  Madden v. Gober,
 regulation has been interpreted to permit a grant of service connection not only for disability caused by a service-connected disability, but for the degree of disability resulting from aggravation of a non-service-connected disability by a service-connected disability.  See Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995).

A layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his current symptomatology.  See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge).  The Board is charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence.  Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1046 (1998); Wensch v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 362, 367 (2001).  

A claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence on any issue material to the claim.  38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.  If the positive and negative evidence is in approximate balance-which includes but is not limited to equipoise-the claimant receives the benefit of the doubt.  Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781 (Fed. Cir. 2021).  If the evidence favors one side or the other, there is not an approximate balance, and therefore the benefit-of-the-doubt-rule does not apply.  Id. at 781-82.

The Veteran, in his April 2020 claim, asserted entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as depression and anxiety, on the basis that such were secondary to a service-connected disability.  There is no indication or assertion that entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder on a direct basis has been raised in the claim herein.  

Service connection has been in effect for lumbar spine, bilateral radiculopathy, and bilateral knee disabilities during the course of the appeal.  Of record are multiple VA and private treatment records and instances of examination related to the Veteran's service-connected lumbar spine, bilateral radiculopathy, and bilateral knee disabilities. 

During his August 2024 Board hearing, the Veteran discussed that he had not worked in the last three years and had "lost everything," due to his physical limitations, that he had lost his business and was no longer the breadwinner in his home.  He discussed that his life had been profoundly changed because he was no longer physically able to do things, which resulted in anxiety and depression. 

Of record is an August 2024 private mental disorders Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) in which the Veteran was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder; the examiner found that it was not possible to differentiate what symptoms were attributable to each diagnosis such that the two mental health diagnoses are rated together and consideration of two separate claims of entitlement to service connection is not required.  

At that time, the Veteran discussed his in-service back and knee injuries, resulting in medical discharge.  He reported that his problems, from physical pain, hindered his marriage, that "they could tell when he was having a bad day," and isolated and attempted to keep from "being mean."  He reported that sitting, standing, and walking, as well as driving, for any length of time was limited.  He discussed that he had not worked in three years, having owned a trucking company for many years, although he worked from home in the end, having his partner run the day-to-day operations, resulting in friction.  He reported that he lost his commercial driving license due to numbness in the bilateral lower extremities.  He reported that his life had really changed from his pain and physical limitations, that he could not enjoy activities such as exercising at the gym or going shooting, and that he had gone from someone who was always on the go and never stopped to a person who "never went."  He reported a boring and depressed life, with sleep difficulties, social isolation, panic attacks, and feeling overwhelmed.  The private examiner opined that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder were the result of his service-connected back and knee disabilities on the basis that he suffered chronic back and physical limitations from the same, negatively impacting his mood and functioning. 

The August 2024 private etiological opinion was based on a review of the claims file and the examiner offered a reasonable medical basis for their conclusion. Absent probative evidence to the contrary, the Board is not in a position to further question the opinion.  See
 the go and never stopped to a person who "never went."  He reported a boring and depressed life, with sleep difficulties, social isolation, panic attacks, and feeling overwhelmed.  The private examiner opined that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder were the result of his service-connected back and knee disabilities on the basis that he suffered chronic back and physical limitations from the same, negatively impacting his mood and functioning. 

The August 2024 private etiological opinion was based on a review of the claims file and the examiner offered a reasonable medical basis for their conclusion. Absent probative evidence to the contrary, the Board is not in a position to further question the opinion.  See Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991).  Notably, the AOJ did not afford the Veteran a VA examination on this issue. 

Based on the above, the Board finds that there is probative evidence that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder is secondary to his service-connected lumbar spine, bilateral radiculopathy, and bilateral knee disabilities.  There is no negative evidence of record.  Accordingly, service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include a major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder, as secondary to service-connected lumbar spine, bilateral radiculopathy, and bilateral knee disabilities, is established; the claim is granted.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

 

 

P.M. DILORENZO

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Anderson, Megan

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.