BVA Case 02-1077: Back

In an addendum, the VA physician opined: This veteran's CAD is more likely than not related to both his long[]standing smoking and his [hypertension (HPT)].

In the May 23, 2002, BVA decision here on appeal, the Board found that there was "no competent medical evidence linking the veteran's fatal cardiovascular disease .

§§ 5103(a) and 5103A, the Board determined that "VA has met its duty to notify and assist in the appellant's case" and stated: The record discloses that the December 1999 [RO] decision provided the appellant with the reasons and bases for the denial of her claim.

The Board did not address or even cite to the VA regulation, 38 C.

and his death", (2) that the Secretary failed to advise her who was responsible for obtaining what evidence, and (3) that the Board failed to address adequately under 38 U.

In a case involving the sufficiency of notice to a veteran regarding an impending foreclosure based on a default under a VA-guaranteed home loan, the Court assessed the sufficiency of the notice under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review set forth in 38 U.

111, 119 (1997) (holding that appellant not prejudiced by Board's "requiring new and material evidence .

[t]he failure to carry out [VCAA-notice] development under those circumstances is nonprejudicial error under section 7261(b)(2)"); Velez, supra (holding twice that any Board failure to give certain notice was not prejudicial where lack of nexus medical evidence was determinative of outcome of service- connection claim; and holding that any Board error in considering issue of service incurrence was nonprejudicial where nexus medical evidence was lacking); cf.