Citation Nr: 1318277 Decision Date: 06/05/13 Archive Date: 06/11/13 DOCKET NO. 02-16 322 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Robert V. Chisholm, Attorney at Law ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Higgs, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from February 1967 to September 1972. He died in July 1973. The appellant is the Veteran's surviving spouse. This matter initially came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision in February 2000 by the RO. A review of the Virtual VA paperless claims processing system does not reveal any additional documents pertinent to the present appeal. In January 2005, the Board reopened the previously denied claim of service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death and remanded the matter for further development of the record. The Board again remanded the case to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC) in May 2006. In a decision promulgated in June 2007, the Board denied the appellant's claim of service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death. The appellant then appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). The Court issued a March 2009 Memorandum Decision that affirmed the Board decision. However, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board decision in September 2009. As a result, in February 2010, the Court issued a memorandum decision that vacated the June 2007 decision of the Board and remanded the matter to the Board for further consideration. In October 2010, the Board remanded the matter to the RO for additional development. In a September 2011 decision, the Board again denied the appellant's claim of service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death. In an April 2012 Order, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) granted a Joint Motion for Remand of the parties and vacated the September 2011 decision of the Board. The appeal is being remanded to the RO. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required on her part. Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002). REMAND The Veteran died by drowning in July 1973. The appellant asserts that the drowning was an act of suicide resulting from service-related psychiatric disability. She has provided lay and medical evidence in support of this assertion. There is a private medical opinion indicating that the drowning was accidental. In January 2013, the Board informed the appellant and her representative that it had obtained a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) expert medical opinion in connection with the appeal of service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.901-20.903. In response, on January 25, 2013, upon his receipt of the VHA medical expert opinion obtained in this matter, the appellant's attorney requested, among other things, a copy of the VHA medical expert's curriculum vitae. Additionally, in February 2013, the representative provided an addendum opinion in support of the appellant's claim, from a psychologist who had provided his detailed 11-page curriculum vitae in September 2012, along with his medical opinion in support of the appellant's claim. After careful consideration, the Board finds that, given the conflicting medical opinions are to be carefully weighed, the curriculum vitae of the VHA medical expert is relevant to adjudication of the claim on appeal. Accordingly, a remand is necessary so that the curriculum vitae of the VA physician who provided the opinion can be obtained and provided to the appellant and to her representative prior to further adjudication of the claim by the RO. The appellant and her representative should also be afforded an opportunity to submit evidence and argument pertinent to the newly received evidence. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(a)-(c). Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should take appropriate steps to obtain the curriculum vitae of the VHA medical expert who provided the opinion to the Board in this matter in December 2012. 2. The RO then should provide a copy of the curriculum vitae of the VHA medical expert to the appellant and her representative and afford them appropriate time to submit additional evidence and argument in this matter. 3. After completing all indicated development, the RO should readjudicate the claim remaining on appeal in light of all the evidence of record. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the RO should furnish the appellant and her attorney a fully responsive Supplemental Statement of the Case and afford them a reasonable opportunity for response. Thereafter, if indicated, the case should be returned to the Board for the purpose of appellate disposition. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2012). _________________________________________________ STEPHEN L. WILKINS Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2012).