Is HLR worth it?

Yes, an HLR is often worth pursuing, especially given the specific errors identified in your case, but it is a strategic decision that depends on your evidence. The Board judge’s identification of approximately seven Duty to Assist (DTA) errors is a powerful indicator that the Regional Office (RO) failed in its obligations under 38 CFR 3.159(c) to obtain relevant records or provide adequate examinations. An HLR (38 CFR 3.2601) is the fastest appeal lane to correct these clear procedural errors without submitting new evidence, as a Senior Reviewer can reverse or remand based on the existing record. For example, if your mental health rating is low, the reviewer can assess whether the evaluation properly applied the criteria in 38 CFR 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9400, considering the *DeLuca v. Brown* precedent on functional impairment. However, if your new C&P exam results constitute *new* evidence, you cannot use an HLR and must opt for a Supplemental Claim. Your actionable next step is to immediately obtain and review the BVA remand order (which details each DTA error) and your new C&P exam report; if the new exam merely clarifies the existing record, file an HLR Form 20-0996, explicitly citing the remand’s findings and relevant CFRs to argue the RO’s prior decision was clearly erroneous. If the exam adds new findings, file a Supplemental Claim with that evidence. Given your timeline, an HLR (averaging 4-5 months) is significantly faster than waiting for the BVA to readjudicate post-remand.

*This information is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional legal or medical advice.*