BVA9500818 DOCKET NO. 93-06 882 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death. 2. Entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Sherman, Counsel REMAND The veteran had active military service from April 1944 to December 1945. This appeal arises from a January 1992 rating decision of the St. Petersburg, Florida, regional office (RO) that denied service connection as the cause of the veteran's death and denied entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) benefits. The veteran died in December 1991 at HCA New Port Richey Hospital. The cause of death recorded on his death certificate is myocardial infarction as a consequence of arteriosclerotic heart disease. At the time of his death, the veteran was rated 100 percent service-connected disabled for bilateral deafness under diagnostic code 6110 and 10 percent service-connected disabled for labyrinthitis, chronic with tinnitus bilateral under diagnostic code 6204. The veteran's 100 percent disability rating dated from December 1987. The appellant is the veteran's widow, who filed a claim for DIC and for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death in January 1992. Upon denial of her claims, the widow entered a Notice of Disagreement (NOD). The appellant contends that the veteran's service connected hearing loss was the cause of his heart failure. Alternatively, she contends that the heart condition that caused his death began in service as manifested by hypertension. In support of the contention that the veteran's hearing loss played a part in his death, the appellant offered a letter from W. H. Broadfield, Jr., M.D. The physician opined that it was plausible that hearing loss caused the veteran to have a heart attack, since "stress of any sort can cause problems with myocardial infarctions." The appellant also offered a letter from James A. Haley VA Hospital in Tampa, Florida, signed by Ms. [redacted], to the effect that an unnamed attending physician entered a statement into the veteran's record in June 1992, six months after the veteran's death, to the effect that the veteran's angina would be worsened or brought on by anxiety over his inability to communicate due to profound hearing loss. As to the contention that the veteran developed hypertension in service that caused his heart condition, we note that the service medical records document some elevated blood pressure readings. However, at a VA examination in April l965, the diagnosis was hypertension, not found. At that time, the veteran reported that elevated readings had been noted at his place of employment with [redacted]. If available, medical records generated in connection with this employment should be obtained. Also, records of any other treatment for cardiovascular disease postservice should be elicited from the veteran's widow. In order to assure that the Department has complied with its responsibility to notify a claimant of material necessary to compete an application under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) (West 1991), it is necessary to REMAND to the RO for the following development: 1. Obtain terminal hospital treatment records for the veteran from HCA New Port Richey Hospital. 2. Ask the appellant to provide names, addresses, and releases for the veteran's treatment records for hearing loss and tinnitus from 1987 to his death and for hypertension, a heart condition and any nervous symptoms since service discharge. Obtain copies of the records. Medical records generated in connection with the veteran's employment with [redacted] between l945 and l965 and treatment records from VA facilities at Hines, Bay Pines and Tampa should also be obtained. Finally, all treatment records pertaining to the veteran in the possession of Dr. W. Broadfield, Jr., 5341 Grand Blvd., New Port Richey, Florida 34652 should be obtained. 3. Contact Ms. [redacted] at the Tampa VA medical center and ask for an explanation of the treatment note made by an attending physician six months following the veteran's death. Obtain the name of the attending physician who made the notation, the circumstances under which it was made, and the treatment records upon which the statement was based. Obtain the original records in which the statement is contained. 4. After the development requested above has been completed to the extent possible, the RO should again review the record. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the appellant and her representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given the opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if appropriate. The appellant need take no further action until she is further informed. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional medical information. No inference should be drawn regarding the final disposition of the claim as a result of this action. I. S. SHERMAN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1993).