Citation Nr: 20003891 Decision Date: 01/16/20 Archive Date: 01/15/20 DOCKET NO. 09-40 235 DATE: January 16, 2020 REMANDED Dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for the cause of the Veteran’s death.   REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from October 1971 to July 1975. He died in February 2008. The appellant is his surviving spouse. The case is on appeal from a March 2009 rating decision. The Board remanded the claim in April 2011, December 2012, November 2013, and February 2014. Most recently, in a May 2015 decision, the Board denied DIC under 38 U.S.C. § 1151. The appellant subsequently appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a January 2018 memorandum decision, the Court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the claims for actions consistent with the memorandum decision. DIC under the provisions of § 1151 for the cause of the Veteran’s death. In May 2019, the Board requested an independent medical expert (IME) opinion pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.901(d), which was authored in July 2019. The appellant was furnished a copy of such opinion, with a notification informing her that she had 60 days from the date of the letter to review the medical opinion and send VA any additional evidence. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.903. In November 2019, the appellant submitted a statement in support of her claim and a statement specifically indicating that she did not waive RO consideration of the IME opinion, and she requested that his case be remanded to the RO for consideration of this new evidence in the first instance. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c). Therefore, the Board finds that the RO should consider all evidence since the August 2014 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) to include the appellant’s November 2019 statement and the July 2019 IME opinion on remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Readjudicate the claim with consideration of all the evidence, including the newly obtained evidence since the August 2014 SSOC. If the benefit sought is not granted in full, furnish the Veteran with an SSOC and return the case to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. RYAN T. KESSEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Gray, Associate Counsel 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 This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.