Citation Nr: 21002532 Decision Date: 01/13/21 Archive Date: 01/13/21 DOCKET NO. 16-48 322 DATE: January 13, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for the cause of death is remanded. Entitlement to Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty in the U.S. Army from July 1968 to July 1970. The Veteran sadly passed away in April 2012. The appellant is the Veteran’s surviving spouse. The issues are on appeal from an October 2012 rating decision. The appellant testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in July 2019. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. 1. Entitlement to service connection for the cause of death is remanded. 2. Entitlement to DIC under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 is remanded The appellant’s representative contends that VA failed to properly treat the Veteran’s diagnosed Hepatitis C and cites the failure as the proximate cause of the Veteran’s death. Specifically, the representative alleges that the lack of treatment led directly to the Veteran’s development of cirrhosis of the liver, then a liver transplant which was rejected by the Veteran’s body, and then death by the subsequent septic shock of the rejection. During her Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) hearing, the appellant testified that the Veteran had received exclusive treatment at the Hampton VA Medical Center (VAMC) from the 1990’s until early 2000’s, until he also began receiving treatment at the Hunter Holmes McGuire Medical Center (Richmond VAMC). Pertinently, the appellant contends that the Hampton VAMC records would show that the Veteran was diagnosed with Hepatitis C in the 1990’s. Hampton VAMC records from March 2000 through April 2012 are of record. Richmond VAMC records from March 2009 through August 2012 are also of record. Therefore, the regional office (RO) should obtain from the Hampton and Richmond VAMCs any outstanding records of evaluation and/or treatment of the Veteran’s Hepatitis C from the early 1990’s until his death in April 2012, following the current procedures prescribed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) with regard to requests for records from Federal facilities. The Board notes that in July 2016, negative etiology opinions for the appellant’s claims were obtained by a VA examiner. However, following the development of above, an addendum medical opinion considering the information found in the newly obtained records is needed. The Board finds that remand is warranted for the provision of an additional medical opinion, preferably by the same July 2016 VA examiner, as to whether the Veteran’s death was related to service and/or whether VA treatment caused, contributed to, or hastened the Veteran’s death. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding, pertinent records of VA evaluation and/or treatment of the Veteran, to particularly include those of the Hampton VAMC dated from the early 1990’s and the Richmond VAMC dated from the early 2000’s. Follow the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) with respect to requesting records from Federal facilities. All records/responses received should be associated with the file. 2. After associating all pertinent VA medical records with the claims file, the RO should arrange to obtain an addendum opinion from the July 2016 VA examiner or another examiner with similar expertise. After reviewing the evidence of record, the examiner is asked to address the following: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (i.e. 50 percent or greater) that VA treatment caused, contributed to, or hastened the Veteran’s death from multiorgan dysfunction syndrome, liver failure, and septic shock, to include a failure to properly treat the condition? Please explain why or why not. (b.) If VA treatment caused, contributed to, or hastened the Veteran’s death, what is the likelihood that there was carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or similar instances of fault on VA’s part in treating the Veteran’s Hepatitis C? Please explain why or why not. (c.) Is it at least as likely as not (i.e. 50 percent or greater) that the Veteran’s Hepatitis C is related to service? A rationale for any opinions expressed should be set forth. If an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner should explain why so (e.g. lack of sufficient information/evidence, the limits of medical knowledge, etc.). 3. Readjudicate the appeals. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Lee 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.