Citation Nr: 21002111 Decision Date: 01/12/21 Archive Date: 01/12/21 DOCKET NO. 07-14 662 DATE: January 12, 2021 REMANDED Recognition of Patricia A. Eaddy (P.E.) as the surviving spouse of the Veteran for the purpose of entitlement to Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant P.E. asserts that she is the surviving spouse of a veteran (the Veteran) who had active service from January 1969 to September 1972. The Veteran died in October 1996. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a September 2006 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Baltimore, Maryland, which found that the appellant and the Veteran had been divorced. P.E. testified at a June 2009 Central Office hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in Washington, DC. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. This matter has a long procedural history that has been recounted in previous Board decisions. Most recently, the instant matter was before the Board in October 2018, where the Board once again denied recognition of P.E. as the surviving spouse of the Veteran for the purpose of entitlement to DIC benefits. P.E. appealed the October 2018 Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a May 2020 Memorandum Decision, the Court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the issue to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the decision. For the reasons discussed below, this matter must be remanded for additional development; therefore, the Board need not discuss compliance with the May 2020 Memorandum Decision at this time. See Forcier v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 414 (2006). Recognition as Spouse VA should obtain all relevant VA and private documentation that could potentially be helpful in resolving the issues. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78, 81-82 (1990); Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). In September 2020, VA received a letter from contested claimant Barbara Eaddy (B.E.), who is currently recognized as the Veteran’s spouse for VA benefits purposes. Per the letter, P.E. and B.E. are currently involved in litigation in the Osceola County Court in Kissimmee, Florida. P.E. is seeking to have the Veteran’s death certificate changed, and to assert a claim on the marital home that B.E. inherited after the Veteran’s death. Additionally, B.E. explained that settlement negotiations had been ongoing. The Board notes that the evidence developed as part of the aforementioned litigation could be relevant to the instant matter. Further, any ruling by the Osceola County Court and/or settlement between the parties may affect the adjudication of the instant matter, if not be dispositive of the issue. As such, the Board finds remand to obtain the litigation documents to be warranted. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should contact both P.E. and B.E., and ask that they provide any currently available records, to include evidence and exhibits, regarding their ongoing litigation in the Osceola County Court in Kissimmee, Florida. Further, P.E. and B.E. should be asked to provide information and updates on the status of the litigation. (Continued on the next page)   2. The AOJ should hold this matter in abeyance until the Osceola County Court litigation has resolved. Upon resolution of the matter, the AOJ should again contact P.E. and B.E. and ask that they provide updated documentation, to include evidence, exhibits, and any orders/judgements issued by the Osceola County Court. 3. Once the Osceola County Court litigation has resolved and the updated litigation records obtained, to include any judgment issued by the Osceola County Court, readjudicate the issue of recognition of P.E. as the surviving spouse of the Veteran for the purpose of entitlement to DIC benefits. The AOJ should ensure that all contested claimant procedures are properly followed. J. PARKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Blowers, 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.