Citation Nr: 21028655 Decision Date: 05/11/21 Archive Date: 05/11/21 DOCKET NO. 12-04 929 DATE: May 11, 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 October 1972 to July 1973. The Veteran died in June 2002. The appellant filed this claim as the surviving spouse. In the February 2012 VA Form 9, the appellant revoked a state representative as her power of attorney prior to the certification of this appeal to the Board. She has not indicated that she desires another representative and demonstrated an intent to individually pursue her claim. Thus, the Board will proceed under the assumption that she wishes to represent herself. In July 2018, the Board remanded the case for additional evidentiary development. Specifically, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) obtained a VA medical opinion in June 2019 and readjudicated the case in a June 2019 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). In September 2019 and October 2020, the Board remanded the case for the AOJ to verify the appellant's address and to resend the June 2019 SSOC to the appellant. Specifically, the AOJ verified and resent the June 2019 SSOC to the appellant's most recent address of record in March 2021. The AOJ also readjudicated the case in a January 2021 SSOC. The case has been returned to the Board for appellate review. Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death In this case, the appellant contends that a psychiatric disability was incurred in service and either contributed directly to cause the Veteran's death or contributed to cause or aggravate his fatal hypertensive heart disease. If there is no showing of a resulting chronic condition during service, then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required to support a finding of chronicity. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); see Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding that the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) apply only for the specific "chronic diseases" listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a)). For VA purposes, "chronic diseases," includes cardiovascular-renal disease (contemplates hypertensive heart disease) and psychoses (contemplates schizophrenia). 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.309(a); 3.384 (the term psychosis includes schizophrenia for VA purposes). During the course of this appeal, a VA medical opinion was provided in June 2019, but the examiner failed to address whether symptoms of the Veteran's post-service diagnosis of schizophrenia were continuous since separation from service in 1973, as raised by the appellant. As a result, an addendum VA medical opinion is needed to properly adjudicate this claim on appeal. The Board emphasizes that it is not determining whether or not the appellant's reported observations of the Veteran's psychiatric symptoms since separation from service (as noted in the October 2009 private medical opinion) are credible at this time, as the additional development set forth in the directives below could impact that determination. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Provide the Veteran's claims file to an appropriate clinician to provide an addendum opinion regarding the appellant's cause of death claim. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the examiner for review. For the purposes of this remand only, and for the limited purpose of conducting the examination and providing a medical opinion, the examiner should assume that the appellant's lay assertions of the Veteran's psychiatric symptoms since separation from active service (as noted in the October 2009 private medical opinion) are true. If there is a medical reason to doubt its veracity, the examiner should explain why the appellant's recollection is inconsistent with the principles of medical science and/or the evidence in this case. The examiner must opine as to the following: (a.) The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that (i) the Veteran's schizophrenia was related to an incident of service, to include consideration of the Veteran's reported crying and getting upset while in service (as noted in a November 1978 private treatment record), or if (ii) the Veteran's symptoms of schizophrenia began within one year after discharge from active service, to include consideration of the appellant's reported observations of the Veteran soon after separation from active service (as noted in the October 2009 private medical opinion). (b.) If so, whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's fatal hypertensive heart disease was proximately due to or the result of his schizophrenia. (c.) Whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's fatal hypertensive heart disease was aggravated beyond its natural progression by his schizophrenia. The examiner must provide all findings, along with a complete rationale for his or her opinion(s) in the examination report. If any of the above requested opinions cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner must state this and provide a rationale for such conclusion. 2. Then, review all medical opinions provided to ensure that the requested information was provided. If any report or opinion is deficient in any manner, the AOJ must implement corrective procedures. 3. Then, readjudicate the claim. If the decision is adverse to the appellant, issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case and allow the applicable time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Carter, 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.