BVA Case 19-4776: Depression

We are first asked to decide whether the Board failed to provide notice that there was a new-and-material-evidence issue where the RO had previously reopened the unspecified right- hand disability and mental disease claims.

We are also asked to decide whether the Board erred by not addressing reasonably raised claims related to the unspecified right-hand disability and mental disease claims.

In August 2011,the RO declined to reopen the unspecified right hand disability claim because new and material evidence had not been submitted.

But the RO declined to reopen the unspecified right hand disability and mental disease claims because new and material evidence had not been submitted.

In June 2014,the RO issued another rating decision,again declining to reopen the unspecified right hand disability and mental disease claims because new and material evidence had not been submitted.

In September 2016,the RO issued a Statement of the Case (SOC), finding that the unspecified right hand disability and mental disease claims were reopened,but denying them on the merits because the SSA,VA treatment, and private medical records did not establish a nexus between those conditions and service.

The Board found that new and material evidence had not been submitted and thus denied reopening the unspecified right hand disability and mental disease claims.

Sheppard states that whether new and material evidence has been submitted is a jurisdictional requirement that the Board must consider.