Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): for Heart Disease and a Thyroid Disability a Separate Claim for Disability Benefits for Those Conditions? Our ability to exercise jurisdiction over this appeal hinges on whether Mr. Robinson is advancing a new claim or merely a new argument in support of his claim. If Mr. Robinson is advancing a new claim, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because there is no final Board decision on that claim. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a), 7266(a); see also Breeden v. Principi, 17 Vet.App. 475, 478 (2004). If, on the other hand, Mr. Robinson is advancing a new argument in support of his claim, then we possess jurisdiction over this appeal and can consider the new argument or remand the matter for the Board to consider it in the first instance. See Maggitt v. West, 202 F.3d 1370, 1377-78 (Fed.Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In Roebuck v. Nicholson, we held that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court has discretion to hear or to remand legal arguments raised for the first time on appeal (B) holding in pertinent part that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal (C) holding that this court must remand to the bia to allow it to address in the first instance an issue that it has not yet considered (D) holding that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear a cue claim raised for the first time on appeal (E) holding that this court has discretion to hear arguments presented to it in the first instance provided that it otherwise has jurisdiction over the claim
Output (English): holding in pertinent part that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal