Single Judge Application; Tadlock v. McDonough, F.4th, 2021 WL 2964328 at *7 (Fed. Cir. July 15, 2021)(holding that the Court’s statutory duty to consider prejudicial error “does not give it the right to make de novo findings of fact or otherwise resolve matters that are open to debate”); Hensley v. West, 212 F.3d 1255, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[A]ppellate tribunals are not appropriate fora for initial fact finding.”);

Designated for electronic publication only
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
No. 20-3581
HENRY L. SHATTEEN, APPELLANT,
V.
DENIS MCDONOUGH,
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.
Before BARTLEY, Chief Judge.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),
this action may not be cited as precedent.
BARTLEY, Chief Judge: Veteran Henry L. Shatteen appeals through counsel an April 21,
2020, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision denying entitlement to service connection for
an acquired psychiatric disorder. Record (R.) at 5-9. For the reasons that follow, the Court will
set aside the April 2020 Board decision and remand the matter for further development, if
necessary, and readjudication consistent with this decision.
I. FACTS
Mr. Shatteen served on active duty in the U.S. Army from November 1972 to November

R. at 704.
In February 2012, Mr. Shatteen filed a claim seeking service connection for, among other
things, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). R. at 433. He included with his claim a February
2012 report from Dr. Paul J. Yocom, a chiropractor. R. at 428-31. Dr. Yocom identified the
injury-causing incident as an in-service bus accident resulting in several orthopedic injuries and
headaches. Id. Dr. Yocom further opined that “Mr. Shatteen has symptoms of PTSD which
include, but are not limited to[,] insomnia, sleep deprivation, anxiety, anger, rage, isolation,
memory loss, hyper[]vigilance, [and] depression.” R. at 431. Dr. Yocom acknowledged that Mr.
2
Shatteen was being evaluated by “the appropriate mental health professionals” and stated that he
“would most probably defer to the specialty practitioner’s judgment in this regard.” Id. He
explained, however, that he had recognized similar symptoms in other patients who were then
referred to appropriate specialists