Citation Nr: 21075688
Decision Date: 12/21/21	Archive Date: 12/21/21

DOCKET NO. 14-30 294
REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for the Veteran's cause of death is remanded. 

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran had active air service from January 1966 to January 1970. The Veteran died in November 1991. The appellant is his surviving spouse. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of an October 2010 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2017, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims file. 

This case was previously before the Board. In an August 2019 decision, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death. The appellant appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In a June 2021 Order, the Court granted a Joint Motion of the parties, vacated the Board's August 2019 decision, and remanded the case to the Board for action consistent with the Joint Motion. 

In the Joint Motion, the parties agreed that the Board erred in not obtaining a dosage estimate pursuant to the procedures outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.311 despite the fact that there was no documentation in the claims file that the Veteran was exposed to ionizing radiation during his active service, or was even in close proximity to a radiation risk activity.

Therefore, a remand is warranted for preparation of a dose estimate in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.311 (2020). 

This matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1. Conduct the appropriate development to determine the Veteran's level of exposure to ionizing radiation during active service pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.311, to specifically include obtaining a dosage estimate from the Under Secretary for Health and referral to the Under Secretary for Benefits. If required, the Under Secretary for Benefits should consider whether an opinion from an outside consultant is necessary to address this claim, per 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(d).

2. Confirm that the development conducted comports with his remand, and undertake any other development determined to be warranted, to include obtaining any necessary medical opinions.

(Continued on the next page)

 

3. Then, readjudicate the appeal. If the decision remains adverse to the appellant, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board.

 

Kristin Haddock

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. Byrd, 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.

.