BVA Case 19-8155: Ptsd

In his informal brief, the appellant does not challenge the Board's denial of an earlier effective date for the award of benefits of bilateral instability of the knees,or the Board's determination that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen his claim for benefits for a bilateral eye disorder, and the Court will therefore dismiss the appeal as to those matters.

)at 1,but the Board did not address claims for those benefits, see Ledford v.

Further,the Board's determination that new and material evidence had been received to reopen the appellant's claim for benefits for urethritis and its grant of benefits for headaches are favorable findings that the Court may not disturb.

For the following reasons,the Court will vacate that part of the Board decision that determined that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen a previously denied claim for benefits for tremors and remand that matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

In the August 2019 decision on appeal,the Board (1) determined that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the previously denied claim for benefits for tremors, R.

at 16;(2) denied benefits for an acquired psychiatric disorder because there was no current disability,R.

The Secretary concedes that remand is warranted for the Board to provide adequate reasons or bases for its conclusion that the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his previously denied claim for benefits for tremors,Secretary's Br.

2(a), [i]f new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim, 38 U.