Citation Nr: 20054940 Decision Date: 08/19/20 Archive Date: 08/19/20 DOCKET NO. 09-46 273 DATE: August 19, 2020 REMANDED Service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death is remanded. Dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1976 to December 1985. He died in May 2008. The Appellant is the Veteran’s widow. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an October 2008 rating decision. In January 2012, the Appellant testified at a hearing before the undersigned. The Board remanded this matter for additional development in May 2012. In a September 2016 decision, the Board denied both issues comprising it. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) issued an order in September 2017 granted a Joint Motion calling for the decision to be vacated and the matter to be remanded back to the Board for readjudication, however. In a March 2018 decision, the Board denied both issues comprising it for a second time. Yet an October 2019 Memorandum Decision from the CAVC once again vacated the decision and remanded this matter back to the Board for readjudication. Cause of the Veteran’s Death; DIC Benefits Under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 Before this third readjudication can occur, the Board finds that additional development must be undertaken concerning service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death. VA must make reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate a DIC claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(1); DeLaRosa v. Peake, 515 F.3d 1319, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Wood v. Peake, 520 F.3d 1345, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Board previously concluded that obtaining a medical opinion was not required in this matter. Upon reassessment and careful consideration of the CAVC’s Memorandum Decision, the Board now remands after reaching the opposite conclusion. The Veteran, who was not service-connected for any disability during his lifetime, died by being struck by multiple vehicles. While his death certificate ruled the incident an accident, the Appellant contends he committed suicide as a result of a psychiatric disorder that began in service. No official incident report is available, and none of the vehicles involved stopped. Yet statements from M.W., a friend of the Veteran’s who witnessed the incident, and the Veteran’s brother, who talked to him shortly before it, lend some support to him committing suicide. Neither service treatment records nor post-service treatment records show that he was diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder for which service connection can be granted (something other than a personality disorder or primary alcohol abuse). However, service treatment records, service personnel records, and the Appellant convey that he experienced problems in his last few years of service. Her statements and testimony and statements from family and friends also convey that the Veteran experienced problems thereafter. Given these complexities, the opinion obtained must be from a medical professional with appropriate expertise. DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 is inextricably intertwined with service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death, and thus also is remanded. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Arrange for a medical professional with the appropriate expertise to thoroughly review the claims file and opine as to the following: a. Was the Veteran’s death an accident or a suicide? b. If the Veteran’s death was a suicide, is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) due to a psychiatric disorder which began during his service? A detailed rationale is required to support each opinion. This means that relevant medical principles and/or medical literature should be discussed as it relates to facts specific to the Veteran, as shown by the medical and lay (non-medical) evidence. If an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to speculation, a complete explanation for why this is so is required. 2. Then readjudicate this matter. If warranted, follow established procedure for returning it to the Board. Thomas H. O’Shay Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Becker 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.