Citation Nr: 20003894 Decision Date: 01/16/20 Archive Date: 01/15/20 DOCKET NO. 17-01 185 DATE: January 16, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The record evidence shows that the Veteran died in March 2014 as a result of cardiac arrest due to congestive heart failure 2. The record evidence shows that, at the time of the Veteran’s death, service connection only was in effect for hemorrhoids. 3. The record evidence does not show that the cause of the Veteran’s death is related to active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3,159, 3.303, 3.304 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from April 1970 to April 1973 and from November 1973 to December 1976. He died in March 2014. The Appellant is his surviving spouse. A videoconference Board hearing was held in November 2019 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge and a copy of the hearing transcript has been added to the record. Because the Appellant currently lives within the jurisdiction of the RO in Jackson, Mississippi, that facility has jurisdiction in this appeal. 1. Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against granting the Appellant’s claim of service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death. The Appellant essentially contends that the cause of the Veteran’s death is related to active service although her precise argument is not clear from a review of the record evidence. Nevertheless, the record evidence does not support finding an etiological link between the cause of the Veteran’s death and active service or any incident of service. It is undisputed that, at the time of the Veteran’s death, service connection only was in effect for hemorrhoids. It also is undisputed that the cause of the Veteran’s death is listed on his death certificate as cardiac arrest due to congestive heart failure. The Veteran’s limited post-service VA outpatient treatment records show that he was treated for a variety of gastrointestinal disabilities in the 1970’s and 1980’s. It appears that the Veteran was lost to treatment from the VA healthcare system since that time. The Veteran’s post-service private treatment records, including from Good Shepard Medical Center, show that he was diagnosed as having and treated for acute on chronic heart failure at a private hospital in October 2013, several months prior to his sudden death from cardiac arrest. At that time, a private cardiologist affiliated with Good Shepard Medical Center noted that the Veteran was in a medically debilitated state and experiencing what appeared to be mild dementia. Given the suddenness of the Veteran’s death from cardiac arrest, there are no terminal medical records indicating his condition immediately prior to his death. The Appellant testified at her November 2019 Board hearing that the Veteran constantly was sick and frequently admitted to the hospital during his lifetime. She referenced his hospitalization in October 2013 for chronic heart failure in her testimony. The Board recognizes that there is no medical opinion of record concerning the contended etiological relationship between the cause of the Veteran’s death and active service. In determining whether a medical opinion is warranted in a claim for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 (or a claim of service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death), VA must determine if such opinion is “necessary to substantiate the claim” or whether, instead, “no reasonable possibility exists that such assistance would aid in substantiating the claim.” DeLaRosa v. Peake, 515 F.3d 1319, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Wood v. Peake, 520 F.3d 1345, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a). In this case, the Board notes that the medical evidence, to include a certificate of death, shows that the Veteran died nearly 48 years after his final service separation of cardiac arrest due to congestive heart failure. There is no medical evidence of continuity of symptoms or competent opinion of a nexus between the Veteran’s fatal cardiac arrest and any incident of service. It also is pertinent to note that, at the time of the Veteran’s death, service connection was in effect only for hemorrhoids. There is no competent evidence, other than the Appellant’s statements, which indicates that the cause of the Veteran’s death may be associated with service. The Appellant is not competent to testify as to the cause of the Veteran’s death as it requires medical expertise to diagnose. Nor is the Appellant competent to testify as to the etiology of the Veteran’s congestive heart failure (or any other disability) prior to his death. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, the Board finds that there is “no reasonable possibility” that obtaining an opinion regarding the cause of the Veteran’s death or the asserted etiological relationship between his death and active service “would aid in substantiating the claim.” See DeLaRosa, 515 F.3d at 1322, and Wood, 520 F.3d at 1348. The Appellant contends that the cause of the Veteran’s death is related to active service. The Board does not doubt that the Appellant found the Veteran’s medically debilitated condition in the months prior to his death disheartening and his sudden death from cardiac arrest shocking. Nevertheless, the record evidence does not support finding the cause of the Veteran’s death to be related to active service or any incident of service. The Appellant finally has not identified or submitted any evidence demonstrating entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death. In summary, the Board finds that service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death is not warranted. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael T. Osborne, 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.