BVA9507976 DOCKET NO. 92-17 991 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Wichita, Kansas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: John A. Hernandez, Jr., Attorney ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. D. Hayden, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran performed active duty from January 1973 to February 1977. Pursuant to an original claim for compensation benefits submitted in February 1977, the Veterans Administration (now Department of Veterans Affairs) (VA) Regional Office in New Orleans, Louisiana, in an August 1977 rating decision, in pertinent part, denied service connection for antisocial personality disorder, previously diagnosed as residual schizophrenia. The veteran was notified of that decision in September 1977 and did not submit a notice of disagreement within one year from the date of notification. The present matter has come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 1989 rating decision by the VA Regional Office in Wichita, Kansas (RO) which held that no error had been shown in the denial of service connection for a psychiatric disorder during the veteran's lifetime and that the evidence did not show that the veteran's service-connected disabilities caused or contributed to cause the veteran's death. During the veteran's lifetime, service connection was in effect for postoperative residuals of a right medial meniscectomy and chondromalacia of the left patella with postoperative residuals of a repair of a torn medial meniscus. Both of those disorders were evaluated as 10 percent disabling. REMAND The death certificate shows that the veteran died in August 1989 from intoxication by multiple drugs. His death was listed as a suicide. During service, the veteran was diagnosed as having schizophrenia, residual type. Subsequent to service, he has had a multiplicity of diagnoses, including schizophrenia. Because there is a ruling that the veteran's death was a suicide and he was diagnosed as having an acquired psychiatric disorder, schizophrenia, during service, the appellant, who is the widow of the veteran, has submitted a well-grounded claim. The VA has the duty to assist her in developing all facts pertinent to that claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). VA regulations require that a determination be made in each case as to whether a person, at the time of suicide, was so mentally unsound that he or she did not realize the consequences of such an act or unable to resist such an impulse. 38 C.F.R. § 3.302(b)(1) (1994). The circumstances surrounding the veteran's death are pertinent to the appellant's claim. Also, the denial of service connection resulted from a claim for compensation by the veteran, the appellant 's claim is not subject to the finality of a previous determination regarding service connection based upon the veteran's claim. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following additional development: 1. The RO should obtain all pertinent documentation related to the veteran's death. This should include the coroner's report, a copy of the autopsy protocol and any police report, if not associated with the coroner's report. Any evidentiary leads suggested by the foregoing reports should be followed to their logical conclusion. All pertinent records should be associated with the claims file. 2. The complete clinical records of the veteran's hospitalization at the New Orleans VA medical facility in February and March 1977 should be obtained and associated with the claims folder. 3. The Acadiana Mental Health Center should be requested to provide records of their treatment of the veteran from March to October 1977 as set forth in a November 1977 summary. Records of subsequent treatment as set forth in letters dated in April and October 1984 should also be obtained and associated with the claims file. 4. The Hunt Correctional Center should be requested to provide any records in its possession for treatment of the veteran as discussed in an October 1982 letter. 5. The appellant should be requested to submit or identify any additional evidence relating to psychiatric treatment or examinations, including observation of the veteran subsequent to 1988. If she chooses to identify the evidence, she should provide sufficient detail to allow VA personnel to assist her in obtaining the evidence. Information provided should include the name and address of physician(s) and/or facility(ies) and the approximate date(s) of examination, observation or treatment. She should be requested to authorize the release of any medical information and furnished the necessary forms to do so. The RO should assist the appellant in obtaining all information identified by her and associating it with the claims file. Any evidentiary lead should be followed to its logical conclusion. 6. When all development has been completed to the extent possible, the case should be readjudicated by the RO on a de novo basis considering all evidence of record. If the decision is unfavorable to the appellant, she and her representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and afforded a suitable opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board in accordance with applicable procedures for the processing of appeals. No further action is required of the appellant until she receives further notice. By this REMAND, the Board intimates no opinion regarding the decision warranted upon completion of the requested development. THOMAS J. DANNAHER 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) (1994).