U.S. Code » Title 38 » Part PART II— GENERAL BENEFITS › Chapter CHAPTER 13— DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE-CONNECTED DEATHS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION

38 U.S.C. § 1318

Benefits for survivors of certain veterans rated totally disabled at time of death

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Secretary shall pay benefits under this chapter to the surviving spouse and to the children of a deceased veteran described in subsection (b) of this section in the same manner as if the veteran’s death were service connected.(b) A deceased veteran referred to in subsection (a) of this section is a veteran who dies, not as the result of the veteran’s own willful misconduct, and who was in receipt of or entitled to receive (or but for the receipt of retired or retirement pay was entitled to receive) compensation at the time of death for a service-connected disability rated totally disabling if—(1) the disability was continuously rated totally disabling for a period of 10 or more years immediately preceding death;(2) the disability was continuously rated totally disabling for a period of not less than five years from the date of such veteran’s discharge or other release from active duty; or(3) the veteran was a former prisoner of war and the disability was continuously rated totally disabling for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding death.(c) Benefits may not be paid under this chapter by reason of this section to a surviving spouse of a veteran unless—(1) the surviving spouse was married to the veteran for one year or more immediately preceding the veteran’s death; or(2) a child was born of the marriage or was born to them before the marriage.(d) If a surviving spouse or a child receives any money or property of value pursuant to an award in a judicial proceeding based upon, or a settlement or compromise of, any cause of action for damages for the death of a veteran described in subsection (a) of this section, benefits under this chapter payable to such surviving spouse or child by virtue of this section shall not be paid for any month following a month in which any such money or property is received until such time as the total amount of such benefits that would otherwise have been payable equals the total of the amount of the money received and the fair market value of the property received.(e) For purposes of sections 1448(d) and 1450(c) of title 10, eligibility for benefits under this chapter by virtue of this section shall be deemed eligibility for dependency and indemnity compensation under section 1311(a) of this title.(Added Pub. L. 100–687, div. B, title XIV, § 1403(a)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4130, § 418; amended Pub. L. 101–237, title I, § 113, Dec. 18, 1989, 103 Stat. 2065; renumbered § 1318 and amended Pub. L. 102–83, §§ 4(b)(1), (2)(E), 5(a), (c)(1), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 404–406; Pub. L. 106–117, title V, § 501(b), Nov. 30, 1999, 113 Stat. 1573; Pub. L. 106–419, title IV, § 404(a)(2), Nov. 1, 2000, 114 Stat. 1864; Pub. L. 111–275, title VI, § 603(a), Oct. 13, 2010, 124 Stat. 2885.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2010—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 111–275 struck out “who died after September 30, 1999,” after “prisoner of war”.

2000—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 106–419 substituted “not less than” for “not later than”.

1999—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 106–117, § 501(b)(1), substituted “rated totally disabling if—” for “that either—” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 106–117, § 501(b)(2), inserted “the disability” after “(1)” and struck out “or” after “death;”.

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 106–117, § 501(b)(3), substituted “the disability was continuously rated totally disabling” for “if so rated for a lesser period, was so rated continuously” and substituted “; or” for the period at the end.

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 106–117, § 501(b)(4), added par. (3).

1991—Pub. L. 102–83, § 5(a), renumbered section 418 of this title as this section.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–83, § 4(b)(1), (2)(E), substituted “Secretary” for “Administrator”.

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 102–83, § 5(c)(1), substituted “1311(a)” for “411(a)”.

1989—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 101–237 substituted “one year” for “two years”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2010 Amendment

Pub. L. 111–275, title VI, § 603(b), Oct. 13, 2010, 124 Stat. 2885, provided that: “The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall take effect on October 1, 2011.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 99 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (Vet. App. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (Vet. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “§ 1310 , on the b'asis that she had not presented a well-grounded claim that the veteran’s death had been service connected, and also pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1318 . Record (R.) at 11. The appellant has filed a brief and a reply brief, and the Secretary has filed a brief, and…”
Green v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 111 (Vet. App. 1997). · cites it 11× “§ 410 (b) (now 38 U.S.C. § 1318 ), found no new evidence, and concluded that the claim for benefits under section 1318 “is not successfully reopened.”
Maria R. Rodriguez v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 275 (Vet. App. 2005). · cites it 14× “Rodriguez, the surviving spouse of veteran Feliz Estremera-Acevedo, through counsel, seeks review of a June 10, 2003, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board or BVA) that denied her claim for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 . Both…”
Bryan v. West, 13 Vet. App. 482 (Vet. App. 2000). · cites it 8× “§ 1346 , 2671-80, should *484 be offset against her dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 (d). The Court has jurisdiction over the case under 38 U.”
Frances D'Aries v. James B. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97 (Vet. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “D'Aries's claims in September 2003 and denied her claim for dependency and indemnity compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 . This Court reversed that decision and remanded the matter to the Board for readjudication.”
Damrel v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 242 (Vet. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “Damrel, appeals a February 12, 1993, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) which determined that there was no clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in an unappealed July 1967 rating decision denying a total disability rating based on individual unemployability, and which…”
John R. Ramsey Et Al. v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 16 (Vet. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “In imposing a stay at VA, including at the Board, on the processing of claims for dependency and indemnity compensation benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 , the Federal Circuit determined "that it would be inappropriate for the agency to further process claims under section 1318…”
Carpenter v. West, 11 Vet. App. 140 (Vet. App. 1998). · cites it 7× “Department of Veterans Affairs) (VA) regional office (RO) decision that the appellant asserted had committed clear and unmistakable error (CUE) was subsumed in a March 1984 BVA decision, (2) concluded that the criteria for review of an RO decision based on CUE had not been met,…”
Ruiz v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 352 (Vet. App. 1997). · cites it 11× “38 U.S.C. § 1318 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.22 (a) The appellant argues that the Board failed to apply and consider two provisions of law that she maintains are reasonably made applicable by the facts and circumstances of the case, regardless of whether the appellant has expressly raised…”
Nat'l Org. of Vets.' Advocates, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 15× “1 That regulation, as revised in January 2000, restricts the award of dependency and indemnity compensation (“DIC”) benefits to survivors 2 of deceased veterans to cases where the veteran (during his or her lifetime) had established a right to receive total service-connected dis…”
Wingo v. West, 11 Vet. App. 307 (Vet. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “140 (1998), the Court in that decision remanded the appellant’s DIC claim for a determination under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 of “whether, had [the veteran] brought a claim more than 10 years prior to his death, he ‘would have been entitled’ to receive a total disability rating for the…”
Rodriguez v. Peake, 511 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “Alternatively, if a veteran’s death is not “service-connected,” 38 U.S.C. § 1318 provides that a surviving spouse may still receive DIC benefits if the veteran had received, or was entitled to receive, compensation at the time of his or her death for a service-connected…”
Show all 99 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.