Citation Nr: A25035230
Decision Date: 04/16/25	Archive Date: 04/16/25

DOCKET NO. 210401-148751
DATE: April 16, 2025

ORDER

The appeal for entitlement to payment or reimbursement for non-Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) ambulance services for an episode of care on March 29, 2020, is dismissed.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In November 2023, the Veteran died while this appeal was pending before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board).

2. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) reported that the prior denial of benefits was overturned and the claim was approved and processed for payment for the episode of care for non-VA ambulance services rendered on March 29, 2020.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Due to the death of the Veteran, the criteria for the dismissal of this appeal have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7104; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302.

2. The appeal of the issue of entitlement to payment or reimbursement for non-VA ambulance services for an episode of care on March 29, 2020, is dismissed as moot. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1703, 1725, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 17.52, 17.120, 17.121, 20.205.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had active-duty service from November 1968 to December 1971.

This matter comes before the Board on appeal of a February 2021 VA VHA agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision. The February 2021 decision denied payment for expenses in the amount of $1,605.40, related to ambulance travel on March 29, 2020, on the basis that the ambulance claim did not meet all required criteria.

In March 2021, the Veteran's sister submitted a VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement (NOD), appealing the February 2021 denial on the Veteran's behalf, selecting a Board appeal and requesting requested direct review of the evidence by a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ).

Unfortunately, the Veteran died during the pendency of this appeal. As a matter of law, appellants' claims do not survive their deaths. Therefore, this appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302.

There are provisions in place to allow substitution, a process where an eligible person to take the Veteran's place in his appeal in order to get a final decision.

However, please note, an appellant can be found eligible for substitution or accrued benefits only for claims for periodic monetary benefits, and not for claims for personal benefits administered through the VHA. 38 U.S.C. § 5121 (a), 5121A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1000, 3.1010. Where there has already been payment in full, there is no possibility of substitution. See Smith (Joshua L.) v. Collins, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7947, No. 2023-1749 (Fed. Cir April 4, 2025). See also Pappalardo v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 63 (1993) (Nonrecurring reimbursements are not payable in accrued benefits claims.). An award for beneficiary travel reimbursement is not a "periodic monthly benefit," but rather a one-time payment afforded to veterans under 38 U.S.C. § 111; 38 C.F.R. § 70.10 (a). 

Moreover, after this appeal was filed to the Board, the claim was administratively and clinically reviewed. On July 2, 2021, the AOJ issued a second Explanation of Payment (EOP) and informed Nature Coast Emergency Medical Foundation, Inc., that the claim was paid in the full amount of $1,605.40, under the authority of 38 U.S.C. § 1703.

A claim for reimbursement of beneficiary travel expenses cannot, as a matter of law, be granted on the basis of an accrued benefit. Therefore, the Veteran's claim is dismissed. 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302.

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7105, the Board may dismiss any appeal that fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. Here, the requested payment or reimbursement for beneficiary travel expenses incurred for transport via ambulance on March 29, 2020, has been approved. As such, there remains no adverse action for the Board to adjudicate.

Accordingly, the Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal with respect to this issue, and the appeal is therefore dismissed. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105.

 

 

Emily Tamlyn

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	J. Frazier, 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.