Citation Nr: 0001526 Decision Date: 01/19/00 Archive Date: 01/28/00 DOCKET NO. 94-25 323 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boston, Massachusetts THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Alba Dotto, Attorney WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jeffrey A. Pisaro, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from December 1965 to January 1969. The appellant is the veteran's widow. This appeal arises from a November 1990 rating decision of the Boston, Massachusetts Regional Office (RO), that denied entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death. The appellant testified before the undersigned member of the Board at a December 1995 Travel Board hearing. In November 1996, the case was referred to a medical expert for an opinion; an opinion was received in December 1996. The Board issued a decision in June 1997 denying the appellant's claim of entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death. The appellant filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (known as the United States Court of Veterans Appeals prior to March 1, 1999) (hereinafter, "the Court"). In June 1998, the Secretary submitted a motion for summary affirmance to the Court. The case is again before the Board pursuant to a May 1999 memorandum decision of the Court wherein the Secretary's motion was granted in part and denied in part, and the Court affirmed the June 1997 decision in part and vacated the decision in part. The part of the Board's decision that was vacated by the Court was remanded to the Board. Judgment was entered on June 1, 1999. The Board notes that the Court determined that the appellant had submitted a well grounded claim. The Court's well grounded determination constitutes the law of the case for the instant appeal; thus, the Board will proceed directly to a consideration of the fulfillment of the duty to assist in compliance with the Court's decision. REMAND It was determined in the May 1999 memorandum decision that there was sufficient medical evidence to make well grounded the appellant's claim for the cause of the veteran's death on the basis of direct service connection for schizophrenia. As a well grounded claim has been presented, VA has a statutory duty under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) to assist the appellant in the development of facts pertaining to her claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (1999); Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 90 (1990). In making this determination, the Court emphasized several medical opinions. In January 1991, Dr. Sheridan opined that the veteran had a preexisting mental illness with paranoid and psychotic features which predated at least in its early form his Vietnam experience. Dr. Sheridan further opined that it was possible although not certain that the veteran's mental illness was aggravated by his Vietnam experience. With regard to Dr. Sheridan's letter, the Court noted that the doctor appeared to be suggesting that the veteran's mental illness may have had a relationship to his experiences in Vietnam. In a December 1996 VA expert opinion, it was opined that the examiner pretty much concurred with Dr. Sheridan's evaluation that the veteran's symptoms were not consistent with a diagnosis of PTSD, but the examiner felt stronger about the possibility that the veteran's war experiences may have contributed to make manifest a possible schizophrenic genetic vulnerability or at least aggravated the course of his schizophrenic illness. The Court determined that the medical evidence did not show that the veteran's death was due to PTSD or to a condition that had been aggravated during his service. Based on the above evidence, the Court determined that the Board had failed to obtain a definitive medical opinion as to whether the veteran had suffered a service connected psychiatric condition that was a principal or contributory cause of his suicide. The Court directed that the Board should seek clarification from Dr. Sheridan and from the VA medical expert as to whether they had intended to opine that the veteran's suicide had had a causal relationship to a disability of service origin. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following: 1. The RO should undertake all necessary steps to contact Dr. Sheridan and the VA physician who authored the December 1996 expert medical opinion in order to obtain clarification of their opinion. Specifically, they should be asked to answer the following questions: I. Is it at least as likely as not that schizophrenia was manifest during military service; if not, when was it first manifest? II. Is it at least as likely as not that the veteran's suicide was the result of schizophrenia which had its onset in service. 2. Upon receipt of the reports of clarification from Dr. Sheridan and the VA physician, the RO should review them to ensure that they are adequate. If any report is inadequate for any reason, the RO should return the examination report for completion/correction. 3. After completion of the requested development, the RO should review the appellant's claim. If the action taken remains adverse to the appellant in any way, she and her representative should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case. They should then be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. The appellant need take no further action until she is notified, but she has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded to the regional office. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). The purposes of this REMAND are to obtain additional information and to ensure due process of law. This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West Supp. 1999) (Historical and Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44- 8.45 and 38.02-38.03. Iris S. Sherman Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 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) (1999).