Citation Nr: 21014654 Decision Date: 03/15/21 Archive Date: 03/15/21 DOCKET NO. 15-43 648 DATE: March 15, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death is remanded. Entitlement to Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1961 to February 1963. The Veteran died in November 2014. The appellant is his surviving spouse. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a November 2014 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2020 the appellant testified at a hearing in front of the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claim file. The Board notes that at the February 2020 hearing, the appellant and her representative clarified that part of their claim was for DIC benefits pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1318. As the cause of death claim and the claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 are both DIC claims, the Board will address this issue as well. The Board finds that more development is necessary prior to final adjudication of the claims on appeal. The Veteran died in November 2014, and his death certificate indicates the immediate cause of death was cardiorespiratory, deep vein thrombosis, chronic renal insufficiency and coronary artery disease. At the time of his death, the Veteran was service connected for a back strain, lateral recess stenosis, bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus and dizziness and occasional staggering associated with bilateral hearing loss. Notably, an October 1961 service treatment record demonstrates that the Veteran presented with chest pains. However, an opinion has not been obtained to determine if the Veteran’s in-service chest pains were a manifestation of any heart disorder to include coronary artery disease, that contributed to his death. Therefore, a remand is necessary to obtain an opinion. Accordingly, the Board finds that a VA opinion is warranted to determine if the Veteran’s in-service chest pains were a manifestation of any heart disorder to include coronary artery disease, that contributed to his death. See McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The requested development on the appellant’s cause of death claim is inextricably intertwined, since a grant of that claim could moot further consideration of her claim for DIC under 38U.S.C. §1318. As such, the Board will defer consideration of this issue until the Agency of Original Jursdiction (AOJ) readjudicates the claim for service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991); see also Tyrues v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 166, 177 (2009) (en banc) (explaining that claims are inextricably intertwined where the adjudication of one claim could have a significant impact on the adjudication of another claim). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The appellant should be requested to provide the names, addresses and approximate dates of treatment of all medical care providers, VA and non-VA, who treated the Veteran for the disabilities on appeal. After the appellant has signed the appropriate releases, those records should be obtained and associated with the claims folder. 2. Obtain an opinion to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s heart disorder to include coronary artery disease. The complete record, to include a copy of this remand and the claims folder, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examination report must include a notation that this record review took place. The examiner is asked to opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s heart disorder to include coronary artery disease was due to military service, to include the Veteran’s in-service complaints of chest pains. 3. Thereafter, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the appellant and her representative should be provided with a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond. The case should then   be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board James A. DeFrank, 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.