Citation Nr: 21011559 Decision Date: 03/02/21 Archive Date: 03/02/21 DOCKET NO. 07-29 384 DATE: March 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from February 1970 to March 1971. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2006 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which, in pertinent part, denied service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death. This decision was appealed in a notice of disagreement (NOD) received by VA in March 2007. A Statement of the Case (SOC) was issued by VA in August 2007. VA received the appellant’s Substantive Appeal (Form 9) in September 2007, declining an optional hearing before the Board. This claim has been considered by the Board in decisions issued in March 2009, March 2012, November 2015, April 2018, November 2018, and October 2020. The claim was also previously remanded by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) in a February 2020 upon a joint motion for partial remand (JMPR). As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that the additional issues of entitlement to service connection for alcohol abuse and entitlement to total disability based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU), to include on an extraschedular basis, are currently pending before the RO. The Board finds that service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death, is inextricably intertwined with these pending claims, as an outcome on either one of those issues may have an impact on the outcome of this claim. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991) (holding that where a decision on one issue would have a significant impact upon another, and that impact in turn could render any appellate review on the other claim meaningless and a waste of judicial resources, the two claims are inextricably intertwined). As such, this claim for service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death should be held in abeyance pending completion of all development related to the above claims. 1. Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death is remanded. In its October 2020 remand of this issue, the Board ordered that the appellant and her attorney be provided with copies of Dr. K’s and Ms. G’s medical opinions and curricula vitae. Ms. G is the author of the May 2016 and May 2018 medical opinions and Dr. K reviewed and co-signed the May 2016 VA medical opinion of Ms. G. In the February 2020 JMPR, it was noted that these had previously been requested by the appellant’s attorney and that as the duty to assist had not been met by VA, the Board’s November 2018 decision should be vacated and the matter returned to the Board to order development with the duty to assist. See Francway v. Wilkie, 940 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Due to an apparent administrative error, the appeal of this issue was prematurely returned to the Board without this ordered development having been completed and without a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) being issued. Thus, the Board must now remand for the RO to complete the development ordered in the October 2020 Board decision and issue an SSOC. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Complete the development ordered by the Board in its October 2020 remand. 2. Then, readjudicate the issue on appeal, including the inextricably intertwined issues of entitlement to service connection for alcohol abuse and entitlement to TDIU, to include on an extraschedular basis. If the benefits sought are not granted to the appellant’s satisfaction, send the appellant and her representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. K. Conner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Kleponis, 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.