UN IT ED ST AT ES CO UR T O F A PP EA LS FO R V ET ER AN S C LA IMS

N O . 05-0355 ANGEL V AZQUEZ -F LORES , A P P EL LA NT ,
V
. J A M ES B. P EA KE , M.D., S ECR ETA RY OF V ETER A N S A FF AI RS , A PP ELL EE
. On Ap pe al f rom the Bo ard

of Ve ter an s' Ap pe als (Argued March 8, 2007 ( Decided January 30, 2008 )
Kathy A. Lieberman , o f W ash ing ton , D .C ., fo r th e ap pe llant. Debra L. Bernal , with whom Ti m S . Mc Clain , G e n e ra l C o uns el; R. Randa ll C am pb ell , Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Carolyn F. Washington , Deputy AssistantGeneral Counsel, al l of W ash ing ton , D .C ., we re o n th e b rie f f or t he ap pe lle e. Before GREEN E, Chief Judge , and KASOLD and HAGEL, Ju dges . KASOLD , Judge , filed the opini on of the Court. HAGEL, Judge , filed an opinion co nc urr ingin t

he res ult

. KASOLD , Judge : Veteran Angel Vazque z-Flo re s ap peal s through counsel a February 1, 20 05 , d eci sio n of

the B oard of

Vet erans ' App eal s (B oard) that den ied a d isa bil ityrat inggre ate r th an 30 % f or n ep hro lithia sis (ki dn eysto ne s), an d denie d s erv ice co nn ect ion fo r a n europ sy ch iatric disorder on adirect ba sis and as secondary to a service- connected renal disabili ty. For the reas ons set forth below, t he Boa rd's decision will be set asi de and these matters r emanded for readjudic ation.

I. BACKGROUND Mr. Vazquez-Flor es served on active duty in the U.S. Arm y from July 1963 to July 1965 a nd from January 1966 to Ja nuary 1969. Record (R.) at26. He was granted s ervi ce c onnection for nephrolithiasis, and i n April 1976 his di sability rating was i ncr ea se d to 3 0% . R. at 242, 246. Ad dit ion al e vid entiary d ev elo pm ent f o ll o w e d , d

u ri n gwh ic hM r. V a z q

ue z-F lor es s ub m itt ed

anAp ril2

1979 private ment al evaluat ion reportfrom Dr. Raul Correa Grau tha t reflects a diagnosis of
m od eratel ys e v e re d ep res siv e re act ion an d Apri l 19 79 ho sp ita liz ati on rec ord s th at r ef

lec t a d iag no sis of sch izo phren ia. R. at 2 50 -52 , 27 4-7 5. A ft er a dd iti on al a dju dic ati on wh ere in a

VAreg ion al o ff

ice (R O ) d e n ie d

h is c la im

f o r s e rv ic e c o nn e c ti o nf

o r a p s y c h iatr ic d is o rd e r, M r. V a z qu e z -F lor es
su bm itt ed a June 198 2 pri vate ps yc hiatri c eva luatio n re po rt that op ine d th at h e h ad un dif fe rentiated schizophreni a and that hi s condition " becomes m ore promine ntwh en ph[y]sical symptom atology flares up." R. at 280. He appealed the RO decision to the Board, and in September 1984 the Board, inter al ia, denied se rvice connec tion for an acquir ed psychiatric disorde r on the basis that itwas not incurred i n or aggravat ed by service . R. at 296-305. In Augus t 19 94 , M r. V azq ue z-F lor es s ou ght to reo pe n h is p rev iou sly de nie d cla im . R . at 35 8. He als o cla im ed

th at his "s erv ice -co nn ect ed k idn eyc on dit ion

h a[ d] in cre ase d in

sev eri ty. " Id

. Durin g th e d ev elo pm ent of the se c lai m s, Mr. Vazq

ue z-F lor es submitt ed

a Ju ly 1 99 4 VA m ed ica l report that his nephr olithia sis caused de pression. R. at 362. He als o submitted a September 1995 letter fr om his pri vate ps yc hiatri st, Dr . J os e Ju arb e, wh o o pin ed that Mr . V azq

ue z-F lor es' "schizophr enic condit ion start ed back in 1964," and that he conside red the schi zophrenia t o be
ser vic e co nne cte d. R. at 3 90 . In Fe bru ary 19 98 , D r. Juarbe tes tif

ied be fo re the RO that Mr

. Vazquez-Flores had major de pression that "without any doubt is rela ted to his phys ical condi tion." R. at 455. In August 2000, the RO issued to Mr. Vazquez -Flores a Suppl emental Statement of the Case (SSOC) containing the diagnosti c code (DC ) criteri a for nephrolithiasis, hydronephrosi s, and
ren al d ys fu nc tio n. R. at 5 05 -14 . ANo ve m be r 20 02 VAm entaldis ord ers ex am inatio n re po rt ref lec ted that Mr. Vaz qu ez- Fl ore s had a d iag no sis of

rec urr ent, m od erate m ajo r de pre ssi ve dis ord er that w as n ot r elated

to s erv ice an d w as n ot p rec ipi tat ed or aggravate d b y M r. V azq ue z-F lor es' service- connected re nal disabi lity. Th e VA examiner sta ted that M r. Vazquez-Flor es "does not rep ort any s ub jec tiv e co m

pla int , any typ e o f r elatio ns hip be tw een his ren al s ym

pto m s an d h is ps yc hiatri c sym

pto m ato logy, " an d th at h is c lin ica l hi sto ry d em on str ate d n o ty pe of rel ati on sh ip between these c onditions. R. at 585. In the deci sion on appeal, the Board found thatl ett ers dated Apri l 2001 from the RO and December 2003 from

the A ppeals Management Center (AMC) satisfied the Secretary's 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) duty to notify, and that a February 2004 SSOC satisfied the addi tional not ice requi rement in 3 8 C .F .R . § 3. 15 9(b ) (2 00 7). R. at 18-2 0. Th e B oard d en ied ser vic e co nn ect ion

fo r a3

ne uro ps yc hiatri c d iso rde r on bo th a dir ect ba sis and as s eco nd ary

to a ser vic e-c onne cte d re na l dis ab ili ty, an d a lso de nie d an in cre ase d d isa bil ityrat inggre ate r th an30 % f or n ep hro lithia sis

. Mr. Vazq ue z-F lor es argu es o n a

pp ealthat the Board er

red in its d ete rm inatio n th at a de qu ate
sec tio n 5 10 3(a ) no tic e o n h owto su bs tantiate h is c lai m

ha d b een pro vid ed . S pe cif

ica lly , h e ar gu es that th e letter s rel ied

u po n byth e B oard f

ail ed to e xp lai n th e cr ite ria

fo r a d isa bil ityrat inggre ate r than 30% for nephrol ithiasi s, including the pos sibili ty of rating the c ondition under a n alterna tive DC . H e f urt he r ar gu es t

hat no tic e th at the ev ide nc e m us t sh owthat hi s co nd iti on ha s "g ott enwo rse "
– w ith out expla ini ngwh at " wo rse " m ean s in the co nte xt o f t he cla im – is als o in su ff

ici ent. M r. Vazq ue z-F lor es als o m aintai ns that he sh ou ld h av e b een giv enno tic e o n h owto r eq ue st an extrasche dular rat ing.

II. DI SC US SI ON A. 38 U. S. C. § 5 10 3(a ) N oti ce 1. Required Notice i n General Up on rec eip t of a com ple te or sub stanti all y co m

ple te ap pli cat ion

for be ne fi ts, the Se cre tar

y is r eq uir ed to inf orm a c lai m ant o f any inf

orm ati on and e vid en ce no t of

rec ord (1) that is ne ces sar

y to subs tantiat e the cla im, (2) that the Secr etary will seek t o obtai n, if any, and (3) that the clai mant is e xpected to pr ovide, if any. Se e38 U. S. C. § 5 10 3(a ); Quartuccio v. Princ ipi , 16 Vet.App. 183, 18 7 (2 00 2) ( fa ilure t o p rov ide ad equate sec tio n 5 10 3(a ) no tic e is rem an da ble err or) ; seeals o Pa ralyzed Vete rans o

f A m. v. Se c'y

of V ete ra ns Af fai rs , 345 F.3d 1334, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (section 51 03 (a) "ap pl[ ies ] o nly

wh ena cl aim

canno t be grante d in

the ab sen ce o f a dd iti on al
ne ces sar y in fo rm ati on

de scr ibed in the n oti ce" ). R egulatio ns als o p rov ide that th e S ecr etary i s required t o "requestthat the claimant provide any evidence in the claimant's possession thatpertains to t he cla im ." 3 8 C .F .R . § 3. 15 9(b )(1 ) (2 00 7); see Pelegri ni v. Princ ipi , 18 Vet.App. 112, 121 (2004). The purpo se o f s ection 5103(a ) and § 3.159(b) i s to requir e the Secret ary to "pr ovide af fi rm ati ve no tif

icatio n to the cl aim ant pri or to the in iti al de cis ion in the case as to th e evi de nc e th at is n eed ed and who sh allbe res po ns ibl e f or p rov idi ngit. " Mayfield v. Nicholson , 444 F.3d 1328, 13 33 (F ed . C ir. 20 06 ) (

May fie ld I I ). H ow ev er, sec tio n 5 10 3(a ) do es n ot requir e a " pre de cis ion al adjudicat ion" of the evidenc e because " th e du ty to notify deals with evidence gathering, not the4

an aly sis of

alr ead y g ather ed

ev ide nc e. " Locklear v. Nichol son , 2 0 V et. Ap p. 41 0, 41 5-1 6 (2 00 6). Ind eed , s ect ion

51 03 (a) noti ce "m aybe ge neri c in the sen se t

hat it ne ed no t id entif

y e vid en ce sp eci fi c to th e ind ivi du al cla im ant' s cas e (th ou ghit n ece ssaril y m us t be tai lor ed

to t he sp eci fi c n ature of the ve ter an ' s cl aim)." Wil so n v . Ma ns

fie ld, 5 06 F. 3d

10 55 , 1 06 2 (F ed . C ir. 20 07 ). F urt he r, alt ho ug h ad eq

uate sec tio n 51 03 (a) n oti ce ne ed n ot be p rov ide d in a sin gle n oti ce lett er, wh en multiple documents are used to provi de adequate not ice, they must r elate to not ice and "contai n the
sam e co nte nt o r se rve the sam e p urp os e as [s ect ion ] 5 10 3(a ) no tif icatio n. " Sanders v. Nicholson , 48 7 F .3 d 8 81 , 8 86 (F ed . C ir. 20 07 ); seeals o Ma yfi eld II , 444 F.3d at 1335 (" The Board's decisi on was based on an incorrect under standing of the la w, specifically that [section 5103( a)] and [§ 3. 15 9(b )] pe rm itt ed

co m pli an ce t hro ug h a co m bin ati on of unrelated

pre - an d p os t-d eci sio na l
co mm un icatio ns .")

. Ge ne ral ly, sect ion

510 3(a ) not ice mu st be give n on "al l f ive ele m ents o f a

cla im fo r se rvi ce
co nn ect ion ." Di ngess v. Nicholson , 19 Ve t.A pp . 4 73 , 4 87 (20 06 ); seeals o D 'A mi co v. Wes t , 209 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting five elements of claim ). Re ga rd in g the ini tia l-d isa

bil ity -ratin g ele m ent of

a claim fo r se rvi ce- co nn ect ed

dis ab ili ty c om

pe ns ati on , w e h eld in Di ngess that gener al secti on 5103(a) pre- adjudicat ory not ice regarding an ini tial disabili ty rati ng
m us t be pro vid ed , to wi t: [T ]h e S ecretary m

us t, at a m ini m

um , n oti fy

the cla im ant th at, sh ou ld s erv ice co nn ect ion

b e aw ard ed , a sch ed

ular o r e xtr asc he du lar

d isa bil ityratin g will be determined by applying re levant [DCs] in the rating schedule, found in title 38, Code of Federal Regulati ons, to provide adisabili ty rati ng from 0% to as much as 100% (depending o n the di sability involved) bas ed on the natur e of the symptom s of the condition for whi ch d is abil ity compensation is bei ng sought, theirseverity and duration, and their impact upon employm ent. Moreover , consistentwith the statutory and regulat ory history, that noti ce mu stp rovi de examples of the types of m ed ic a l an d

l aye v id e n c e th at th e c la im ant c o u ld s u b m it ( o r a s k [ th e S e c re tary ] to ob tai n) t hat ar e re lev ant to est ab lis hin g a dis ab ili ty –

e. g. , c om pe tent lay s tat em ents de scr ibi ngsym

pto m s, m ed ica l an d h os pit ali zat ion rec ord s, m ed ica l st ate m ents, em plo ye r s tat em ents, jo b ap pli cat ion re jec tio ns , an d any oth er ev ide nc e showing exceptional circumstances rel ating to the disabil ity. Di ngess , 1 9 V et. Ap p. at 4 88 (c iti ng6 6 F ed . R eg . 4 5, 62 0, 45 ,6 22 (Aug . 2 9, 20 01 )). Ho we ve r, whe n the applic ation for benefits "suggest s there is specific inform ation or evi dence necessa ry to resol ve
aniss ue rel ati ngto e lem ents of a c lai m ," the S ecr etary " m us t co ns ide r th at whe n p rov idi ngno tic e
an d ta ilo r the noti ce to inf orm the cl aim ant of

the ev ide nc e an d in fo rm ati on req uir ed to s ub stanti ate5

the ele m ents of

the cl aim rea so na bly rai sed bythe ap pli cat ion ' s w ord ing ." Id . at 48 8-8 9; seeals o Kent v. Nicholson , 2 0 Ve t. App . 1 , 9 -1 0 ( 20 06 ) ( ho ld in g mor e sp ec if ic n ot ic e is re qu ir edforcl ai ms to reopen). I n short, the na ture of the cla im defines th e sc op e of the notice re quired by sect ion 5103(a). See Wils on and Di ngess , both su pra . 2. Re qu ire d N

oti ce f or an Inc reased

-C om pe ns ati on Claim In the cla imant-friendly VA-benefits syst em, a claimant' s assert ion that an a lready service- connected dis ability has worsened or i ncreased i n severity is a cl ai m fo r additional (or increase d) compensation. Se e38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 (providing fort he a ward of com pensation for service- con nected disabiliti es), 1114 (provi ding rates for disabili ty compensation). An increase d-compensation claim for a given disability is a new and separ ate clai m f or which secti on 5103(a) pre- adjudicat ory notice i s require d. Se e38 C.F.R. § 3. 400 (2007) (re cognizing cl aim for inc rea se a s se parat e f

rom ori gin al c laim or cla im reo pe ne d a ft er f

ina l di sal low an ce) ; seeals o Smallwood v. Brown , 10 Vet.App. 93, 97 (1997) . Unlike a n initia l claim for disabili ty compensation where the eval uation of the cla im is generally focused on subst antiati ng s ervi ce connecti on by evidence of an in-s ervice i ncident, a current disability, a nd a nexus be tween the two, the na ture of
aninc rea sed -co m

pe ns ati on cla im center s p rim ari ly o n e va luatin g th e w ors en ingo f a d isa bil itythat is alre ady service connected. See Francisco v. Brown , 7 Ve t.A pp . 5 5, 58 (19 94 ); Pros celle v

. De rw ins ki , 2 Vet.App. 629 (1992). That worseni ng gener al ly i s mea sure d by the degree of the dis ab ili ty i m

pa irm ent, whic h in

turn is m eas ure d b y th e sym pto m s exhib ite d and

the ef fe ct that impairm ent has on the c laimant's em ployment and daily life. Se e38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 4 .1 0 (2 00 7) (ba sis of

dis ab ili ty ev alu ati on s is ab ili ty to fun cti on un de r or din ary

co nd iti on s o f d ail y lif e, inc lud ingem

plo ym ent); Moore v. Nichols on , 2 1 V et. App. 211, 2 18 (20 07 ); Otero -C as tro v. Principi , 16 Vet.App. 375, 381-82 (2002). Ac co rd in gl y, foraninc re as ed -c ompe ns at io n cl ai m, se ct io n 51 03 (a ) r equi re s, at amin imum, that th e Se cre tar

y no tif y the c lai m ant t

hat, to su bs tantiate a cla im , the cla im ant m us t pr ov ide , o r as k the Se cre tar

y to ob tai n, m ed ica l or

lay ev ide nc e dem on str ati nga wor sen ingor inc rea se i n s ev eri ty of the dis ab ili ty and

the ef fe ct that w ors ening has on the cla im ant' s em

plo ym ent an d d ail y li fe

. Furth er, if

the DC un de r whic h the cla im ant is rat ed co nta ins cri ter ia n ece ssary f or e nti tle m ent to a h igh er disability ratin g th at w ou ld n ot b e satis fi ed bythe cla im ant de m on str ati nga n oti cea ble worsening or inc rease in s everity of the di sability and the effect of tha t wor sening has on the6

cla im ant' s em

plo ym ent an d da ilylif

e (su chas a spe cif

ic m eas ure m ent or tes t res ult), t he Se cre tar

y mustprovi de at leas t general notice of that r equirement to the cl aimant. See Wils on , 5 0 6 F

. 3 d at 10 60 -62 ; Moo reand Otero -C as tro , both su

pra ; 38 C. F. R. § 4 .1 0. Add iti on all y, the cla im ant m us t be notified that , should an increase in disability be found, a disability r ating will be determined by applying rel evant DCs, which typical ly provide for a range in severi ty of a particul ar disabi lity from 0% to as muchas 1 00 % (d ep en di ng o n th e di sabi li tyi nv ol ve d) , ba se d onthe n atur e of the sy mpt oms of the condition for which disabili ty compensation i s being sought, their sever ity and durat ion, and their i mpact upon em

ployment and daily life. Di ngess , 19 Vet.App. at 488; 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. As wi th p rop er n oti ce f

or an in iti al disa

bil ityrat ingan d c on sis tent w iththe statutory and r egulator y history, the notice must also provi de examples of the types of medic al a ndl ay evidence that the cla im ant m aysu

bm it ( or ask

th e Se cre tar

y to ob tai n) that are rel ev ant t o est ab lis hin g entit lem ent to increase d compensation–e.g., competent lay stat ements describing s ympt oms, m edical and hospitali zat ion

rec ord s, m ed ica l st ate m ents, em plo ye r st ate m ents, job applicat ion rejec tions, and any other evide nce showing an incr ease in the disabi li ty o r exc eptional c ircumstances rel ating to the disabili ty. Se e D ingess , su pra . 3. Administrati ve Claims Processi ng Se cti on 51 03 (a) no tic e m

us t be giv enbe fo re an in iti al d eci sio n on th e cla im is r en de red

in ord er to serv e its stat

uto ry pu rpo se of prom oti ngdev elo pm ent of the cl aim prop erl y the fi rst

tim e. Se e Ma yfi eld II , 4 44 F .3 d at 13 33 (" Th e purpo se o f t he statut e an d th e co rre sp on din g re gu lat ion is to req uir e that t he VA pro vid e af

fi rm ati ve n oti fi cat ion

to th e cla im ant p rio r t o th e in iti al d eci sio n in the case as to the evi dence that i s needed and who shall be responsibl e for providing it ."); 146 Cong. Re c. S9 21 2-1 3 (S ep t. 25, 2 00 0) ( statem ent of Se n. Ro ck ef

ell er) (no tic e is int en de d to en sure that cla im is " de ve lop ed

pro pe rlyth e fi rst

ti m e the v ete ran

s ub m its an ap pli cat ion

f or b en ef its " su chthat it w ill "le ad

to e xp ed ite d d eci sio nm ak ingan d h igh er sat isf act ion in t he pro ces s") . T his purpo se i s wholly frustrat ed w he n in ad equate notic e leads to i nadequate devel opment of a claim prior to the initia l decisi on. To ensure thatclaimants recei ve the benefits t o which they are e ntitle d, Congress created a
un iq u e ly p ro -c la im ant, n o n a dv e rs ari a l VA -b e n e f it s a d ju d ic ato ry

s y s te m th at c o nta in s s e v era l important procedural steps to pr omote that pro-clai mant environment. See Wils on , 506 F.3d at 10 60 -62 (di scu ssi ngstatut ory an d re gu lat ory

pro vis ion s re lating t o th e ad jud icator y s ch em e);7

Sa nd ers , 4 87 F. 3d

at 8 89 (no tin g th e "uniq ue ly p ro- cla im ant be ne fi ts s ys tem " at VA ); Ho dge v. Wes t , 15 5 F. 3d

1 35 6, 1 36 2 (F ed

. Ci r. 1 99 8); Ha yrev. Wes t , 188 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (ve ter an s sy ste m

is "u niq ue ly cla im ant f

rie nd ly sy ste m

o f aw ard ingc om

pe ns ati on "). Thos e pro ced ura l st ep s al low

cla im ants who dis ag ree with i niti al d eci sio ns on the ir c lai m s to rec eiv e a Statement of the Case (SOC) (and an SSOC if necessary), expl aining the r easons, law, and regulati ons governing tha t decisi on. Additionall y claimants may r eceive furtherdevelopment of their cl aim if deemed proper by the Secret ary, they may appear at a he aring, reque st a revi ew by a decision r eview officer (DRO), and receive at leastone review of the init ial deci sion by the Board. Se e D isa ble d A m. Ve teran s v. Se c'y of V ete ra ns Af fai rs , 327 F. 3d1 33 9, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (inva lid ati ngregulatio n th at p rec lud ed cla im ant' s ri ght t o tw o rev iew s be fo re the Ag en cy ); Di ngess , 19 Ve t.A pp . at 48 9-9 1 (d isc us sin g s ect ion 51 03 (a) w ith in s tat

uto ry a dju dic ato ry s ch em e); see , e.g. , 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104(a)-(b) (r equiring not ice of initi al deci si on on cla im, to include explanat ion of procedure for obtaining revie w of decision and, when benefit sought i s denied, sta tement of reasons fo r de cis ion

an d summ ary of e vid en ce c on sid ere d b y S ecr etary) , 7 10 4(a ) (v est ingBo ard wi th jur isd ict ion

ov er a pp eal s f rom de cis ion bySe cre tar

y on clai m ), 71 05 (d) (pro vid ingthat aft er i nit ial de cis ion is r en de red

on cla im , c lai m ant m ayfi le N oti ce of Dis ag ree m ent (NO D) an d S ecr etary m us t att em pt t o resolve disagree m ent or iss ue SO C) ; see also 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103(b)(1), (c) ( requiri ng notice of any decision aff ecting payment of

benefits or gra nting rel ief, to include not ice of decision made, right to hearing, a nd notice of procedures necessa ry to initiate appeal), 3.103( c)(2) ( providing that VA he ari ngof

fi cer ha s d uty to " su gg est

the su bm iss ion of ev ide nc e whic h th e cl aim ant m ay have overlooked and which would be of advantage to the clai mant' s position" ), 3.2600 (providi ng fo r re vie w b y D RO af

ter NO D ha s b een

fi led); 1 9. 31 (a) (20 07 ) (p rov idi ngfo r an SS OC to b e is su ed to i nf orm cla im ant of

m ate ria l ch an ge s si nc e th e S OC or p rio r S SO C)

. When an NOD is filed to the ini tial decision and the re i s al leged a notice error, the sur est and often quickest way to c orrect that erroris for the adjudi cator to i ssue a ne w, ad equa te noti ce and readjudic ate the claim. See Medrano v. Nichol son , 2 1 V et. Ap p. 16 5, 16 9 (2 00 7) ( Se cre tar y "m ay
cure t im ingde fe cts byiss uin g a fu llyco m

pli ant [section 510 3(a )] no tif icatio n and

the n
rea dju dic ati ngthe cla im "); seeals o May fie ld I I , 4 44 F. 3d at 13 33 -34 (tim ing -of

-no tic e def

ect m ay be cured byiss uanc e o f c ontent-c om pli ant se cti on

510 3(a ) no tic e an d s ub seq ue nt r ead jud icatio n). Fo r th os e cl aim s th at are n ot res olv ed b y the a dju dic ato r and

an ap pe al u lti m ate ly r eac he s th e B oard8

fo r f ina l d eci sio n, th e B oard m us t ne ces sar ilyco ns ide r any e sta bli sh ed pre de cis ion al n oti ce e rro r to be p re su mptively prejudici al. Cf

. Sa nd ers , 4 87 F. 3d

at 8 86 , 8 91 (no tin g th at t he cla im ant ha s the burde n o f d em on str ati ngno tic e er ror); Simmons v. Nichols on , 487 F.3d 892, 894-96 (Fed. Cir . 2007) (claimant must establish that VA comm itted predecisi onal not ice error before Court takes account of pre judice). The Bo ard

m ayev alu ate fo r har

m les s er ror , h ow ev er, su chev alu ati on is s ub jec t to the Court's de novo review. See Medrano , 21 Vet.App. at 170-71 (ci ting Mayfield v. Nicholson , 20 Ve t.A pp . 5 37 , 5 42 -43 (20 06 ) (

May fie ld I II )). 4. Rule of Prejudi cial Error In f ili ng s w iththe Co urt , an a pp ell ant ge ne ral ly m

us t de m on str ate err or. Se e S an de rs , 48 7 F .3 d at 89 1 (a

pp ell ant ha s b urd enof

de m on str ati ngsec tio n 5103 (a) no tic e er ror); Hi lke rt v

. Wes t , 1 2 V et. Ap p. 14 5, 15 1 (1 99 9) ( enbanc ) (ap pe llant h as b urd enof de m on str ati ngerr or) ;
co mp areU.S. V ET
. A PP
. R. 28(a) (requiring appell ant to provi de the Court with abrief present ing alliss ue s o n a

pp eal ) with U.S. V ET
. A PP . R . 2 8(I ) (s us pe nd ingRu le 2 8(a ) an d a llo wi nga p ro s e
ve ter anto s ub m it an in fo rm al b rie f) . Whe the r ad eq uate s ect ion

51 03 (a) no tic e h as b een

pro vid ed is r eviewed under the "clear ly erroneous " standar d of review. See Garrison v. Nichol son , 494 F.3d 13 66 , 1 37 0 (F ed . C ir. 20 07 ); Gordon v. Nicholson , 21 Ve t.A pp . 2 70 , 2 81 (20 07 ) (s ect ion 51 03 (a)
no tic e er ror is a fa ctu al d ete rm inatio n re vie we d und er t he "cl ear ly e rroneous " st an dard) ; Gi lbe rt v . D erw ins ki , 1 Vet.App. 49, 52 (1990) (Board's findings o f f act are r eviewed under the "cl ear ly e rro ne ou s" s tan dard o f r ev iewin 38 U. S. C. § 7 26 1(a )(4 )). A f ind ingof m ate ria l f

act is clearl y erroneous when the Court, after revi ewing the entire evidence, " 'is left with the definit e and fi rm co nv ict ion

that a m ist ak e h as b een

co mm itt ed .' " Id . (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co. , 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). When it is e stablis hed on appeal to the Court that the B oard has comm itted an e rror, the Court must take due ac count of the rule of prejudici al e rror. Se e38 U. S. C. § 7 26 1(b )(2 ) (C ourt s ha ll "take du e ac co unt of

the rul e o f p rej ud ici al e rro r") ; Newhouse v. Nicholson , 497 F.3d 1298, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (s tating " that the Vet erans Court was r equired to e xamine whethe r any error s by VAwe re p rej ud ici al and

that it m us t do so bas ed

on the adm ini str ati ve rec ord "); Conway v. Principi , 353 F.3d 1369, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

. Although an appell ant general ly must establish that error is prejudi cial, seeMa rci nia c v . Brown , 10 Vet.App. 198, 201 (1997) (cit ing Parker v. Brown , 9 V et. Ap p. 47 6, 48 1 (1 99 6) ( ap pe llant m us t de m on str ate pre

jud ice , o r C ourt

wi ll c on clu de that aA l t hough de m onst r at i ng t hat a r eas onabl e pe r son w oul d be e xpect ed t o under st and f r om a pa r t i cul ar not i ce 1
w hat w as nec es sa r y t o s ub st anti at e t he cl ai m i s ci t ed i n Sa nd ers as a m ea n s o f de m o n str ati n g no prej u d i ce , i t i s m o re c o rre c tly s ta te d t o be a d e m o n stra tion t h a t th e re w a s n o erro r. See Fenst er m acher v. Phi l a. N at ' lBank , 493 F. 2d 333, 3 3 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 7 4 ) ( " [ N] o e r r o r c a n b e p r e d i c a t e d o n i n s u f f i c i e n c y o f

n o t i c e s i n c e i t s p u r p o s e h a d b e e n s e r v e d

. " )

. Of c o u rs e , t h a t als o m e a n s th e re w a s n o p reju d ic e a risin g fro m th e n o tice

. See K i t tv. C l ark , 9 3 1 F .2d 12 4 6 , 1 2 4 9 (8th C i r. 1 9 9 1 ) ( "[I]f

t h ere i s n o error, t h ere ca n be no prej u d i ce ."). 9 technical procedural defect is harmless)) , once an appell ant establ ishe s that the re was a sect ion 5103(a) noti ce error , such erroris presumptively pre judicial , seeSa nd

ers , 487 F.3d at 886, 891. A presumptively preju di ci al no ti ce erro r w il l r equi re re ve rs al of the Boa rd 's fi nd in g o f ad equa te secti on 5103(a) noti ce unless the Secretary "can show that the error did not aff ect the essenti al fairness of the ad jud icatio n. " Id . at 88 9; seeals o Mlech ick v. Man sfi eld, 503 F.3d 1340, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (sam e); Intercargo Ins. Co . v . U nited Sta tes , 83 F.3d 391, 396 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (pr ocedural or substanti ve error i s prejudicial when error result s in "injury to an interestthat the s tatute, r egulation, or rule i n question was desi gned to protec t"). To ov erc om e th e p res um pti on o f pre jud ice a sso ciated

w itha p re- ad jud icator y no tic e er

ror , the Secret ary "must persuade the revi ewing court that the purpos e of the noti ce was not frustrat ed." Sa nd ers , 4 87 F. 3d

at 8 89 ; s e ea ls o Mlech ick, 503 F.3d at 1346 (holding that our Court r eviews predecisi onal not ice errors to det ermine whether any differences between notice given and sect ion 5103(a) noti ce requir ed "affect[ed] the fundam ental fairne ss of the adjudica tion"). Th is may be do ne byde m on strating, for exam ple , (1 ) th at t

he cla im ant ha d a ctu al k no wl ed ge of

wh at w as
ne ces sar y to su bs tantiate th e cla im

an d th at t he cla im oth erw ise wa s p rop erl y d ev elo pe d, (2) that "a
rea so na ble pe rso n c ou ld b e expe cte d to und ers tan d fr om the no tic e wh at w as n eed ed " to su bs tantiate the clai m, or (3) that the benefit could not be awarded as amatter of law. Sa nd ers , 487 F.3d at 889 1 (reit erating e xamples noted in Mayfield v. Nicholson , 1 9 V et. Ap p. 10 3 (2 00 5) ( Mayfield I

). Additionall y, because the Courtreviews only final Board deci sions and not the initi al or intermittent de cisions r endered below, see 38 U. S. C. § 72 52 , an d b eca us e re ve rsa l is no t w arr anted unless an error affects the es sential fairness of the adjudi cation, s e eS a nd ers , 487 F.3d at 886, the Co urt sh ou ld c on sid er whe the r th e p os t-a dju dic ato ry n oti ce an d op po rtunit y to d ev elo p th e ca se t

hat is p rov ide d d

uri ngthe ex ten siv e ad

m ini str ati ve ap pe llate p roc eed ing s le ad ingto t he fi na l B oard decision and final Agency adjudicat ion of the claim, see , e.g. , 3 8 U .S .C . § § 5 10 4(a )-(b), 71 04 (a) , 71 05 (d) ; 38 C. F. R. §§ 3. 10 3(b )(1 ), ( c), (c) (2) , 3 .2 60 0, 19 .3 1(a ) (2 00 7), ser ve d to ren der a nypre -A l t hough our di ss ent i ng col l eague t akes e xcept i on t o our not i ng t hat pr e- adj udi cat or y not i ce m ay be r ender ed 2
non- pr ej udi ci al by t he a dm i ni st r at i ve a ppel l at e pr oces s, w e s ee not hi ng i n Sa nd ers th a t m ig h t l im it th e C o u rt so le ly to t he " ex ampl es " c i t ed t he r ei n w he n as s es s i ng p r ej ud i ce . I nd ee d, t he v er y de s i gn at i on o f t he t hr ee s t at ed means of dem onst r at i ng no pr ej udi ce as "exa m pl es " i ndi cat es t her e may be ot her m eans of doi ng s o. M or eover , w e not e t hat our er r or i n M ayf

i el d I w as i n de t erm i ni ng t hat pre- adjudi cat ory noti ce h ad b een sat i sf i ed b y a do cum ent no t ot herw i se di sc uss ed by t he B oar d. The Feder al C i r cui t i n Sa nd ers , New ho use , and M l echi ckm a d e itc le a r th a t o u r fo c u s s h o u ld b e o n w h eth er t h e fi n al B o ard de cision un d er r ev i ew i s r en d ere d esse n t i all y un fair as a resu l t of the i n i t i al no t i ce error, i.e., w h e th e r t h e no tice e rro r p reju d ic ia lly a ffe c te d th e B o a rd ' s fin a l d e c isio n . See also D unl ap v. N i chol son , 21 V et

. A pp. 11 2, 11 8 (2007 ) ( "[I ] n order f or t he C ou r t t o be persuaded t hat no prej ud i ce resul t ed fr om a noti ce err or, t he r eco r d m ust dem onst r at e t hat , des pi t e t he e r r or , t he a dj udi cat i on w as neve r t hel es s es se nt i al l y f ai r . ")

. Fi nal l y, t he pur pose of pr ea d ju d ic a to ry n o tice is to e n su re th e in iti a l d e c isio n is c o rre c t. S ee M ayfi eldII, 444 F. 3d at 1333 ( "The pur pose of t he sta tu te a n d th e c o rre sp o n d in g re g u la tion is to re q u ire th a t t h e V A p ro v id e a ffirm a tive n o tifi c a tion to th e c la im a n t pri or t o t he i ni t i aldec i si on in th e c a se a s to th e e v id e n c e th a t i s n e e d e d a n d w h o s h a ll b e re sp o n sib le fo r p ro v id in g it ." ( em phas i s added) )

. A s not ed i n sec t i on I I

. A

. ( 4) of t he t ext , w e r evi ew f

i nal B oar d deci si ons t hat ar e r ender ed a f t er an e x te n siv e a d m in istra tive a p p e llate p ro c e ss . N o th in g in la w o r c o m m o n s e n se s u p p o rts a c o n c lu sio n th a t t h e C o u rt sh o u ld p u t on bli n d ers a n d i g n o re t h i s p roc es s o r a co n clu sio n th a t a n o t i ce error prior t o t h e init i al de cision by t h e S ec retary coul d not be r ender ed non- pr ej udi ci al w hen t he f ul l panopl y of

admi ni st r at i ve a ppel l at e pr ocedu r es est abl i she d by C o n g re ss a re p ro v id e d to th e c la im a n t. It i s w e ll se ttl e d t h a t a rem a n d i s n o t w a rra n te d w h e n n o b e n e fit w o u ld flo w to th e c la im a n t. See Soyi ni v. D er w i nsk i , 1 V e t.A p p . 5 4 0 , 5 4 6 (1 9 9 1 ) (re m a n d u n n e c e ss a ry w h e n it "w o u ld re su lt in th is C our t ' s u nn ec es s ar i l y i mpos i ng a dd i t i on al b ur de ns o n t he [ B oa r d an d t he S ec r et ar y] wi t h no b en ef i t f l ow i ng t o t he v e te ra n . T h is w e c a n n o t d o ."). 10 adjudicat ory secti on 5103(a) noti ce errornon-prejudi cial. See San de rs , 4 87 F. 3d at 8 86 (re co gn izi ng that the purp os e of

the ru le of

prej ud ici al er

ror is "' to avo id w ast ef

ul p roc eed ing s o n re m an d whe re th er e i s n o r ea so n t o b el ie ve a dif fer en t r es ul t wo ul d have bee n ob ta in edha d the erro r n otoc curr ed '" (quoting In re Wa tts , 35 4 F. 3d 1 36 2, 1 36 9 (F ed . C ir. 20 04 ))) ; seeals o N ew ho us e , 497 F.3d at 1301 (st ati ng"th at the Ve ter an s C ourt w as r eq uir ed to exam ine whe the r any e rro rs b y VA w ere pre jud ici al
an d th at i t m

us t do so ba sed

on the adm ini str ativ e re co rd" ). 2 5. Ap pli ca tio n in thi

s C as e Th e re co rd b ef

ore the Bo ard

rev eal s th at M r. V azq

ue z-F lor es w as as sig ne d a 30 % di sab ili ty rating for nephrolithias is under 38 C.F.R. § 4.115b, DC 7508 (2007), the highest disabi li ty rating for that disabi lity underthat DC. However, DC 7508 cross-r eferences 38 C.F.R. § 4.115b, DC 7509, "hydronephrosi s," which provide s th atsevere hydrone phrosis may be rated as r enal dysfunction
un de r 38 C. F. R. § 4 .1 15 a. Un de r § 4 .1 15 a, hy pe rte ns ion

that i s found t o be 40% d isa bli ngun de r 38 C. F. R. § 4 .1 04 , D C 7 10 1 (2 00 7), is s uf fi cie nt t o in cre ase a d isa

bil ityrat ing for nephrol ith ias is to 60%. Se e3 8 C. F. R. § § 4. 11 5a , 4. 11 5b . A de qu ate sec tio n 5 10 3(a ) no tic e f or M r. V azq

ue z-F lor es' inc rea sed -co m

pe ns ati on cla im sh ou ld h av e in clu de d, at a m ini m um , no tif icatio n that h e m

us t ei the r provide, or as k the Secretary to obt ain, medical or lay evi dence demonstrating the worsening of the dis ab ili ty and

the ef fe ct o f t hat w ors en ingon

his em plo ym ent and

d ail y lif e. Ad dit ion all y, be cau se11

at l eas t so m e o f t

he highe r di sab ili ty r ati ng s autho riz ed und er the D C ( an d re fe ren ced DC s) und er wh ich Mr. Vazq ue z-F lor es' dis ab ili ty i s rated are ba sed on sp eci fi c cr ite ria

be yo n d th e ob vio us ef

fe ct of the wo rse nin g o f the disab ili ty and its ef fe ct u po n h is e m

plo ym ent an d d ail y li fe , th e S ecr etary sh ou ld h av e n oti fi ed

Mr. Vazq ue z-F lor es, at l eas t in

ge ne ralter

m s, o f the in fo rm ati on

an d e vid en ce necessary t o establi sh these more specific cr iteri a. Further, i f an incre ase in disability i s found, a disabili ty rati ng would be assigned by appl ying releva nt DCs b as edo n the nature , severity, and dura ti on of the symptoms and their impact upon his employm ent and dail y life to the ext ent permitted by law. In this ca se, the Board re lied on noti ce l et te rs d at edApril 2001 and December 2003 and a Fe bru ary 20 04 SS OC to f

ind ad eq uate n oti ce. W e o bs erv e that the Boa rd r eli ed on the Fe bru ary 2004 SSOC o nl y to find compliance with § 3.159. The Board found that the April 2001 and December 2003 notice lett ers provide d th e no ti ce requir ed by section 5103( a). Se e Pr ick ett v. Nicholson , 2 0 V et. Ap p. 37 0, 3 75 -76 (2 00 6) (co nc lud ingth at Bo ard f ound o ne le tte r a lon e satis fi ed Secretary's section 5103(a) duty despite di scu ss io n of other documents within the decision) . The Board considere d the April 2001 lett er to be a routine notice letterissued by the RO. Although the Bo ard no ted that th e D ece m

be r 20 03 letter

fr om the AM C w as no t a "fo rm al" sect ion 510 3(a ) no tic e letter , it ne ve rth ele ss f

ound that th is le tte r inf

orm ed Mr. V azq

ue z-F lor es of

the st atu s o f b oth

of his cla im s an d p rov ide d h im ba sic no tic e re qu ire d und er s ect ion 5103(a). R. at 1 9; seeR. at 928. Be cau se t he De cem be r 200 3 letter

was not a de cis ion al n oti fi cat ion an d c ontai ne d e lem ents o f n oti ce required by s ec ti on5 10 3(a) , it was not improper for the Board t o rely on itwhen determining whether adequat e sec tion 5103(a) notice had been pr ovided to Mr. Vazque z-Flores. Se e May fie ld I I , 444 F.3d at 1333 (post- decisional documents have co nt ents and purposes different from those of compliants ect ion 5103(a) not ice documents and therefore c annot serve t o satisfy the purpose of
sec tio n 5 10 3(a )); cf. Sa nd ers , 487 F.3d at 886. No ne the les s, ne ith er o f t he se l ett ers pro vid ed

to M r. V azq

ue z-F lor es t

he ne ces sar

y information regarding subst antiati ng his clai m f or a disabi lity rating hi gher than the 30% rati ng
curr e ntl ya s s ign e d

. T h e Ap ri l 2 0 0 1 le tt e r d o e s n o t a dv is e h o wto s u b s tanti ate an inc rea sed -co m

pensation cl aim . R ath er, it f oc us es o nly

on wh at i s n ece ssary t o s ub stanti ate a
se rv ic e -c o nn e c ti o nc la im

. R

. at 5 5 0 -5 3

. T h e D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 3 l e tt e r a dv is e d

h im o n ly to subm it
ev ide nc e th at s ho ws that hi s n ep hro lithia sis ha s "g ott enwo rse ." R . at 92 8. It f ail s to expla in t

hat12

the ev ide nc e m

us t de m on str ate the ef

fe ct o f t hat w ors en ingon

his occu patio na l and

da ilylif e o r to pro vid e, at least in generalter m s, the cri ter ia b ey on d th e ef fe ct o f t he wo rse nin g o f t

he dis ab ili ty upon the occupati onal and dail y life that is necessary to be awarded the hi gher disabi lity ra ting for his conditi on. Se e3 8 C

. F

. R

. § § 4

. 1 1 5 a , 4

. 1 1 5 b ; Wilson , Moo re , and Otero -C as tro , a ll su

pra . Mo reo ve r, t

he tot ali ty o f i nf

orm ati on pro vid ed in t he se d oc um ents w as a lso co nf us ingin t hat it provided differing ver sions of what was requir ed to show entitlement to a higherdisabili ty rati ng. See Kent , 2 0 Ve t.A

pp . at 12 (i nc om

ple te an d c on fu sin g in fo rm ati on ren de rs s ect ion

51 03 (a) no tic e ina de qu ate ). A cco rdi ng ly, the la ck of ad eq uate i nf orm ati on in t he no tic e an d th e o the rw ise confusing nature of the not ice leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that the Board's finding that the Sec retary pr ovided se ct io n 51 03 (a)-compliant not ice is cl early erroneous. See Gordon , su pra . Having found notice error, that error is pr esumptively prejudic ial. Se e S an de rs , 4 87 F. 3d

at 89 1. Th e Se cre tar

y argue s that M r. Vazq

ue z-F lor es wa s no t p rej ud ice d be cau se t he "re co rd c learly sh ow s th at [ he ] h ad

act ua l kn ow led ge o f wh at wa s ne ces sar y to su bs tantiate his c lai m . In de ed , [ Mr. Vazque z-F lor es] wa s cl ear ly a dv ise d o f t he ev ide nc e n ece ssary t o s ub stanti ate his cla im ." Se cre tar y' s B rie f at 23 . W e ar e n ot c onvin ced bythe Se cre tar

y' s argum ent. T o th e extent he argue s that th e Ap ril 200 1 an d De cem be r 200 3 letter s cle arl y ide nti fi ed the i nf orm ati on an d e vid en ce t

hat
wo uld ass ist in s ub stanti ati ngMr. V azq ue z-F lor es' clai m , h is argum ent f ail s. As dis cu sse d a

bo ve , the se d oc um ents w ere inc om ple te and co nf us ingco nc ern ingwh at w as n ece ssary fo r Mr

. Vazquez-Flores to substant iate his claim for increased compensation. Addi tio na lly , th e S ecr etary' s as ser tio n th at M r. V azq

ue z-F lor es h ad

act ua l kn ow led ge of wh at w as n ece ssary t o s ub stanti ate his cla im ap pears to be prem ise d o n a m isund ers tan din g th at receipt of n oti ce eq

uates to a ctu al kn ow led ge . It d oe s no t. A ctu al kn ow led ge is e sta bli shed by statem ents o r ac tio ns bythe cla im ant or the c lai m ant' s re pre sentat ive that de m on str ate anaw are ne ss of wha t wa s ne ce ss ary t o substanti ate his orher clai m. See Dalton v. Nichols on , 21 Vet.App. 23, 3 0 -3 1 (2 00 7); se e also Short Bear v . Nicholson , 19 Vet.App. 341, 344 (2005). To the exte nt the Secretary contends th atbysubmi tt in g e vi de nc e M r. Va zque z- Fl or es de mons trated a ctual knowledge of what was needed to substant iate his cla im, the Secr etary proffers no evide nce from the record on ap pe al that d e m o n s tr ate s s u c ha c tu a l k n o w le d g e o r un de rst an din g o n th e p art of Mr. Vazq ue z-F lor es. Se e Sand ers , Dalton , and Short Bear , a ll su pra . Finally, the record on appea l otherwise does notU n like o u r d iss e n ting c o llea g u e , w e b e liev e o u r d u ty to " ta k e d u e a c c o u n t o f th e ru le o f p reju d ic ia l erro r" is 3 not l i m i t ed t o cons i der i ng onl y t he t hr ee "e xam pl es " ci t ed i n Sa nd ers . See n .2 , supra , an d acc o m p an y i n g t ex t

. M o reo v er, havi ng not ed t hat not i ce er r or bef or e t he i ni t i al deci si on m i ght be r ender ed non- pr ej udi ci al by t he f ul l panopl y of a d m in istra tive a p p e llate p ro c e d u re s b e lo w , w e p ro c e e d to fin d th a t t h e a d m in istra tive ap p e llate pro c e e d in g s b e lo w fa il t o so de m o n str ate. H av i n g co n fr o n t ed an i ssu e g erm an e t o r es o l u t i o n of t h i s ca se , o u r ruli n g i s no t d ic ta

. See, e. g. , M i randa B. v. K i t

zhabe r , 328 F. 3d 1181, 1186 ( 9t h Ci r . 2003) ( "A s w e ha ve not ed be f or e, ' w her e a pane l conf r ont s an i ss ue ge r m ane t o t he e vent ual r es ol ut i on of t he cas e, and r es ol ves i t af t er r eas oned cons i der at i on i n a publ i she d opi ni on, t h a t r u l i n g b e c o m e s t h e l a w o f t h e c i r c u i t , r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r d o i n g s o i s n e c e s s a r y i n s o m e s t r i c t l o g i c a l s e n s e . '" ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Johns on , 2 5 6 F .3 d 8 9 5 , 9 1 4 (9 th C ir. 20 0 1 ) (e n b a n c ))); Hat ch v

. Pri nci pi , 18 V et

. A pp. 527, 531 ( 2004) ( "A l t hough ' [ n] o c ont r ol l i ng pr ece dent ca n ar i se f r om di ct um on a ques t i on not bef or e t he c our t , ' ' [ w ] hen a n opi ni on i ss ues f

or t he C ourt , i t i s not onl y t he r es ul t but al so t hose por t i ons of t he opi ni on nec es sa r y t o t hat r es ul t by w hi ch w e a r e bound. ' " ( quot i ng Sem i nol e Tr i be of Fl a. v. Fl ori da , 517 U

. S. 44, 67 ( 1996) , and Sul l i van v
. D ep' tof N avy , 7 2 0 F .2d 12 6 6 , 1 2 7 9 (Fe d

. C i r. 19 8 3 )) ).

I n l i ght of

our conc l usi on t hat t he pr es um pt i on of pr ej udi ce w as not r ebut t ed w i t h r egar d t o s peci f i c not i ce of 4 how an i ncr eas ed r at i ng m i ght be s ubst ant i at ed, w e ne ed not f ur t her addr es s ot her a l l eged er r or s i n t he not i ce and a ny re su ltan t p reju d ic e . See D un n v. West , 1 1 V e t.A p p . 4 6 2 , 4 6 7 (1 9 9 8 ) (re m a n d o f a p p e llan t' s c la im u n d e r o n e th e o ry m o o ts t h e rem ain i n g t h eo ri es ad v an ce d on ap p ea l ). 13 demonstrate that dur ing the administrat ive appeal pr ocess Mr. Vazquez -Flores w as provided the information necessary such that any defective predecisi onal notice error was render ed nonprejudici al in terms of

t he e ssent ial fairnes s of the adjudicat ion. Se e Mlech ick, Ne wh ouse , and 3 4 Sa nd ers , a ll su pra . B. St ate m ent of Re aso ns or B ase s Th e B oard m

us t i nclu de in i ts d eci sio n a wr itt enstatem ent of

the rea so ns or b ase s f

or i ts findings and conclusi ons, ad equate to enable an appellant t o understand the precise basis for the Board's decision as well as to facili tate re view in this Court. Se e38 U. S. C. § 7 10 4(d)(1 ); Allda y v. Brown , 7 Ve t.A

pp . 51 7, 527 (19 95 ); Gi lbe rt , 1 Ve t.A pp . at 56 -57

. T o c om

ply wi th t his req uir em ent, the Bo ard m us t an aly ze t

he cre dib ili ty and

pro bativ e v alu e o f th e evi de nc e, acco unt fo r the ev ide nc e that it fi nd s p ers ua siv e o r un

pe rsu asi ve, and pr ovid e th e re aso ns fo r it s re jec tio n o f anym ate ria l evidence favorabl e to the cl aimant. See Caluza v. Brown , 7 Vet. App

. 498, 506 (1995) , aff 'd pe r curiam , 7 8 F .3 d 6 04 (F ed . C ir. 19 96 ) (t ab le) ; Gi lbe rt , 1 Vet.App. at 57. Mr . Va zque z- Fl or es ar gu es th atth e B oard , i n d enyi ng h is ne ur op sy ch ia tr ic di so rd ercl ai m, rel ied he av ilyon

a N ov em be r 2 00 2 VAe xam inatio n re po rt d esp ite the fa ct that th e re po rt i s unc lear as to the scope of

a k eystatem ent, and

wi tho ut e xp lai nin g e vid en ce i n th e re co rd t hat re futes that key statement. Specifical ly, the report state s that Mr . Vazquez-Flores "does n otr ep ortany
su bje cti ve co m

pla int , anytyp e o f r elatio ns hip be tw een his rena l sym

pto m s an d h is p sy ch iatric14

sym pto m ato logy, " an d th at h is c lin ica l hi sto ry s ho ws no typ e o f r elatio ns hip be tw een the se
co nd iti on s. R. at 5 85 . T his statem ent in the Nov em

be r 200 2 VAexam inatio n re po rt m aybe rea d bro ad ly t o s aythat th ere is n o m ed ica l ev ide nc e an d n o com plaints o f r eco rd f

rom Mr. Vazquez-Flores regarding arelati onsh ip b etw een his nephrol ithiasi s and his psychol ogical condi tion. However, the record contains at least three reports that, on thei r face, contradi ct this s tatement. Se e R. at 2 80 (June 19 82 ps yc hiatri c ev alu ati on rep ort statin g that

Mr. Vazq

ue z-F lor es' ps yc hiatri c condition " becomes m ore prominent when ph[y]sical symptom atology flares up"), 362 ( July 1994 VA medical record reflecting that Mr. Vazquez-Flores' complaints of depression were the resultof his nephroli thiasis ), 455 (February 1998 testimony of Dr. Juarbe that Mr . Vazquez-Flores ' m ajor depression " without any doubt i s relat ed to his physi cal condition" ). The Board erre d in not
expla ini ngthe dis cre panc y in thi s ap parentlyco ntr ad ict ory inf orm ati on or whyit g av e g reater weight to the November 2002 examination reportthan it gave to the contra dictory i nform ation. Se e Gi lbe rt , supra. It is als o po ssible th at the N ov em be r 2 00 2 ex aminatio n rep ort c anbe rea d m ore narro wl y to mean that, during that pa rticul ar examination, Mr. Vazquez -Flores pr ovided no history orcomplaint to the examiner. The Board should have r ecognized and addr essed the factthatthe Novem ber 2002
ex am inatio n re po rt s tat em ent on thi s k eyiss ue co uld

fa irl y b e re ad

bro ad ly o r narro wl y, wi th differing m eanings, and it should have either returned the exam ination reportto the e xa min erfor clarifica tion of its meaning or explai ned why such a ct io n was not nec essary. Se e D av es v
. Nicholson , 2 1 V et. Ap p. 4 6, 5 1 (20 07 ) ( wh enm ed ica l e xam inatio n rep ort w as s us cep tib le t o m

ult ipl e fa ir b ut i nc on sis tent m ean ing s, Bo ard err ed in f ail ingto s eek

clarif icatio n); 38 C.F .R . § 4 .2 (20 07 ). C. Fo rei gn

Langua ge Do cum ents C ontai ne d in the Re co rd o n App eal Th e re co rd o n a

ppeal contai ns num ero us do cum ents o bta ine d f rom the So cia l S ecu

rity Ad m ini str ati on

that ar e in

a langua ge othe r t han E ng lis h b ut are una cco m panie d b y an E ng lis h transla tion, thus i mpeding judicial revi ew. Se e , e.g. , R . at 86 3-6 4, 86 6. The "Court co nd uc ts i ts reviews and del iberati ons in English. Any document transmitted to the Court (incl uding one in the record on appeal) in a language other than English must be accompanied by an English translat ion that is c ert if

ie d byt he t ra nslator, pur suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, as true a nd accurate ." U.S. V ET
. A PP
. R. 3(h). The parti es are re minded that compl iance with the Court's Rules of Practice and Pr oc ed ure is m an dator

y, no t pe rm iss ive

.15 D. Rem and Whe re, as h ere , th e B oard h as f ail ed to p rov ide anad eq

uate s tat em ent of

rea so ns or b ase s and there have been other errors prej udicial t o an appellant , the general remedy is to re mand the affected m atters for correcti ve action. Se e T uc ker v. Wes t , 1 1 V et. Ap p. 36 9, 37 4 (1 99 8) ( "[ W ]h ere the Bo ard ha s in co rre ctl y a

pp lie d th e law, fa ile d to pro vid e an ad eq uate s tat em ent of

rea so ns or b ase s fo r it s d ete rm inatio ns , o r whe re the rec ord is o the rw ise ina de qu ate , a rem an d is the ap pro pri ate
rem ed y. "). On re m an d, Mr. Vazq

ue z-F lor es m aypre sent any a dd iti on al e vid en ce and argum ent in
su pp ort of the m att ers rem an de d, an d th e B oard m ust c onsider any

ev ide nc e an d argum ent so presented. See Kay v. Principi , 1 6 V et. Ap p. 52 9, 53 4 (2 00 2). Th ese m att ers m ust be pro vid ed expeditious treatment on remand. Se e38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112.

III . C ON CL US ION Upon considerati on of the foregoing, the Board's February 1, 2005, deci sion is SET ASIDE, and the matters are REMANDE D for readjudicat ion consist ent with thi s opinion.
HAGEL, Judge , concurring i n the resul t: I concuronly in the majority's ultimate conclusi on that a c lai m

fo r in cre ase d d isa

bil ityco m

pe ns ati on req uires at least gene ralsec tio n 5 10 3(a ) no tic e tailor ed to the particul ar s of ani nd ivi dual's claim. This is a logica l conclusi on flowing from our pre vio us de cis ion s, as i s th e m ajo rity's ultimate de ter m inatio n th at t

he no tic e p rov ide d to Mr. Vazq ue z-F lor es w as d ef

ici ent an d that the Sec ret ary fai led to reb ut t he pre sum

pti on of pre jud ice as required by the Federal Cir cuit in i ts opinion i n Sa nd ers . Ho we ve r, I wr it e se para te lyt o expr es s my disagreement with the majority's establishment, in dicta , of a fourth m eans o f r eb ut ting the pre sum pti on o f pre jud ice whe n a sec tio n 5 10 3(a ) no tic e er ror is s ho wn bythe ap pe llant. I al so wr ite to arti culate my opposition to the majority's unnecessary and misleading statements regar ding the
an aly sis of

pre jud ice and the m isguid ed ap pli cat ion

of the U. S. Co urt

of Ap pe als fo r th e F ed era l Circuit's (Federa l Circuit 's) recent opini ons in Sa nd ers , Ne wh ouse, Mle ch ick, and Wilson , a ll su pra , that, i f a pp lie d, wo uld

f rus trate the purpo se o f p re- de cis ion al s ect ion 51 03 (a) no tic e o bli gatio ns in the VA adjudicatory scheme. The majority's statements are neither necessa ry to reac h the decisi on in this ca se nor appli ed in reachi ng it. They are, then, purely dicta. There is da nger in permitting such language t o survive in aprecedenti al opinion, as it s exi stence invites selecti ve quota tion andI have expr es se d m y vi ew t hat i t i s bes t t o deve l op a ge ner al t es t f or t he appl i cat i on of

t he r ul e of

pr ej udi ci al 1
err or t hat can be ap pl i ed i n al l cases, r at her t han t o de vi se a speci al t est app l i cab l e on l y t o sect i on 510 3(a) noti ce cases. See O ver t on v. N i chol

son , 20 V et

. A pp. 494, 498 ( 2006) ( denyi ng f ul l

- C our t cons i der at i on; H agel , J

. , D avi s, J

. , and Schoel en, J

. , di ss ent i ng)

. I bel i eve suc h a ge ner al t es t coul d, i f s o f or m ul at ed, i ncl ud e a m ore gener al us e of t he a d m in istra tive re c o rd fo r c o n sid e ra tion o f th e fa c ts o f e a c h c a s e to d e te rm in e w h e th e r a n o tice e rro r is p reju d ic ia l. H ow ever , t he Fede r al C i r cui t has f ound, f or t he pe r sua si ve r eas ons st at ed i n Sa nd ers , th a t a s p e c ia l tes t is to b e u se d in d e c id in g c a se s in w h ic h a se c tion 5 1 0 3 (a ) n o tice e rro r is fo u n d . W e a re , o f c o u rs e , req u ire d to fo llow th a t p re c e d e n t. 16 misapplication of that l an gu ag e in futur e cases, si milar to what the majority has done with the Fe de ralCi rcu it o pin ion s cl aim ed to s up po rt i ts m ist ak envie w. The ma jor ity ' s attem

pt t o e num erate a f ourth"ex am

ple " f or r eb utt ing prejudice cir cumve nts the Fe de ralCi rcu it' s h old ing s in bo th May fie ld and Sa nd ers . 1. Analysis of Decisions of the Federal Circuit Regarding the Appli cation of the Rule of Preju dic ial

Er ro r in Cases Inv olv ing

Alleg ati on s o f D efe cti ve S

ect ion 51 03 (a

) No tic e There is no doubt that this Courthas the re sp on sibi lity to t ake into acc ount the rul e of pre jud ici al err or. 38 U .S .C

. § 72 61 (b) (2) ; Conway v. Principi , 35 3 F. 3d 136 9 (20 04 ) (h old ingthat thi s C ourt m ayno t re fu se t o take int o a cco unt th e rul e of prej ud ici al er

ror). W e are also ins tru cte d that, in m ak ingsu chde ter m inatio ns , w e ar e n ot l im ite d s ole ly t o th e f act s as fo un d b y th e B oard. Newhouse v. Nicholson , 497 F.3d1 29 8 (2007). These two holdi ngs, however, do not, in ca ses of section 5103( a) notice err or, permit the Court t o conductan unlimited and unconstra ined foraging of the record to make such determinations. In the conte xt of m aking adetermination rega rding pre jud ici al e rro r in

sect ion 5103(a) n oti ce c ase s, the Fe de ralCi rcu it h as p res cri be d th e C ourt t o fo llo w a parti cu lar

m eth od of an aly sis . It

ha s d on e so fo r a v ari ety

of rea so ns , no t the lea st o f whic h is t o e ns ure that th e p urp os e f or whic h th at s tat

ute wa s cr eat ed

is n ot f rus trated an d to ens ure that the burde n of

proo f o f t he harm les sn ess of

de fe cti ve no tic e re m ain s o n th e S ecr etary, wh o is ch arg ed by Congress with provi ding adequa te not ice. Se e S an de rs , 487 F.3d at 887 (holding that "the Secretary is requir ed to persuade the [C]ourt that the purpose of the notice was notfrustrated" ). After this Court wres tled with the applicat ion of the rule of prejudicial error in the context of sec tio n 5 10 3(a ) no tice, this qu est ion wa s d ef ini tiv ely res olv ed bythe Fe de ralCi rcu it b y it s decision i n Sa nd

ers . See Mayfield v. Nicholso n , 1 9 V et. Ap p. 10 3 (2 00 5); Mayf ield v. Nichol

son , 1 19 Ve t.A pp . 2 20 , 2 22 (20 05 ) (d enyin g f ull -C ourt c on sid eratio n; I ve rs, J. , and H ag el, J ., dis sentin g); Overton v. Nicholson , 2 0 V e t. Ap p . 4 2 7 (20 06 ); Overton , su pra n. 1 (d enyin g f

ull -C ourtR u le 2 8 (a ) o f th e C o u rt' s R u le s o f P ra c tice a n d P ro c e d u re sta te s in fu ll: 2 The appel l ant m ust f

i l e a br i ef

w hi ch, unl es s t he appel l ant i s s el f

- r epr es ent ed and submi t s an i nf or m al br i ef pur sua nt t o s ubse ct i on ( I ) , must c ont ai n, i n t he f ol l ow i ng or der , t he a ppr opr i at e di vi si on hea di ngs and f ol l ow i ng s epar at e di vi si ons: ( 1) A t abl e of cont ent s, w i t h page r ef er ence s; ( 2) a t abl e of

ca se s ( al phabet i cal l y l i st ed) , s t at ut es , and ot her aut hor i t i es ci t ed, w i t h r ef er ence s t o t he pa ge of

t he br i ef w h ere t h ey are c i t ed , u n l es s the ca se i s ex p ed i t ed un d er R u le 47 ; (3) a statem en t of the i ssu es ; (4) a sta te m e n t o f th e c a se , sh o w in g b rie fly th e n a tu re o f th e c a se , t h e c o u rs e o f p ro c e e d in g s , t h e re su lt bel ow , and t he f

act s r el evant t o t he i ss ues , w i t h a ppr opr i at e r ef er ence s t o t he r ecor d on appe al ; ( 5) an ar gum ent , begi nni ng w i t h a s um m ar y and cont ai ni ng t he a ppel l ant ' s cont ent i ons w i t h r es pect t o t he i ssu es an d t h e rea so n s for t h o se co n t en t i o n s, w i t h cit ati o n s to t h e a u t h o ri t i es an d pa rt s o f t h e rec o rd o n a p p e a l relie d o n ; an d (6 ) a sh o rt co n c lu sio n sta ting th e p re c ise re lief s o u g h t.
A s re c o g n iz e d b y th e m ajo ri t y , b ri efs o f self-re p re se n te d a p p e llan ts a re g o v e rn e d b y R u le 2 8 (I), w h ic h e x e m p ts 3 th e m fro m a d h e rin g to th e fo rm se t fo rth in R u le 2 8 (a ), an d w h ic h p ro v id e s: " O n ly a se lf-re p re se n te d p a rty m a y su b m it, w itho u t reg a rd to th e re q u ire m e n ts o f su b se c tion (a ) a n d R u le 32 , a n i n fo rm a l b rie f on t h e form pro v id e d by th e C o u rt." 17 co ns ide rat ion ; H ag el, J. , D av is, J. , and Sc ho ele n, J. , diss entin g); seeals o S an de rs , 487 F.3d at 891 (F ed . C ir. 20 07 ) (h old ingthat "all [ sec tio n 51 03 (a) ] no tic e err ors are pr esum ed pre jud ici al and

that th e V A ha s the burd enof r eb utti ng th is pr es umpt io n" ). Con se qu en tl y , d e s p i t e the maj or ity's characte rizati on to the contr ary, see n. 2 o f t he m ajo rity o pin ion , th is Court's initia l de cis ion in May fie ld has been discr edited. The Feder al Circuit 's decision in Mayfield founderr orinth is Court 's relianc e on a document not considered by the Board to be err or and Sa nd ers ov erru le d th is Court 's May fie ld de cis ion wi th re sp ect

to t he pla cem ent of

the burde n o n th e ap pe llant t o s ho w p rej ud ice

. In Sa nd ers , th e F ed era l C irc uit

m ad e se ve ralk eyf

ind ing s. Fi rst , th e v ete ran be ars the burde n of est ab lis hin g th at the re i s se cti on 51 03 (a) no tic e er

ror . C on seq

ue ntl y, if the ve ter anfa ils in t

his regard, then there is no need to engage i n a prejudic ial-error analys is with rega rd to thatissue. Se e id . at 891. In maki ng t hi s finding the Federal Circuit r elies on Rule 28( a) of this Court's Rules of Pr act ice an d P roc ed

ure . T hat ru le, in p ert ine nt p art , re qu ire s th at the app ell ant sub m it a bri ef that inc lud es h is o r he r co nte nti on s w ithres pe ct t o th e is su es and a sh ort co nc lus ion

statin g th e p rec ise rel ief so ug ht. In shor

t, i t ap pe ars that, i n o rde r to sat isf y th e re qu ire m ent of

de m on str ati ngerr or, 2 the rep res ented

ap pe llant m

us t a lle ge the err or i n th e b rie f and su pp ort the all eg ati on

wi th p rop er 3 legal and factua l citat ions. Second, Sa nd

ers ho lds that if

the ve ter anall eg es a

no tic e er ror an d p rop erly suppo rts that allegat ion, that the error i s presumed to be prejudicial, while VA has the burden of proving thatthe notice error did not r esult in pr ejudice. Id . at 889. Third, in Sa nd

ers , the Federal Circuit h el d th at if the Court finds a not ice err or and the18

Se cre tar y f ail s to sat isf

y it s burde n o f p rov ingthat su chno tic e er ror is n ot p rej ud ici al, the re i s o nly one course of acti on: The matter must be remanded. This requirement could not have bee n put
m ore dir ect ly or su cci nc tlyb y the F ed era l C irc uit : "[ W ]e h old th at the [V ete ran s C lai m s A ssi stanc e Act] notice err ors should be pr esumed prejudicial, requiring reversal unless the VA can show that the errordid not effect the ess ential fairness of the adjudic ation. To do this , the VA m ust persuade the rev iew ingco urt

that th e p urp os e o f t

he no tic e w as n ot f

rus trated ." Id . (emphasis added). Fourth, in Sa nd

ers , the Federal Circuit went to great pains to explain how such amethod of
an aly sis fi ts w ith in t

he ge ne ralrule of prejud ici al e rro r, s tat ingthat "[ a] pre sum pti on of pre jud ice do es n ot r eq

uir e re ve rsa l in

a ll ins tan ces o f [s ect ion

5 10 3(a )] n oti ce err or. On ly i n s itu ati on s wh ere theVA ca nn ot reb ut t

hepresu mption wo uld

rev ers al b e w arr anted ." Id . at 89 1 (e m ph asi s ad de d). Ne wh ousefollowed Sa nd ers . Ne wh ouse v. Nicholson , 49 7 F .3 d 1 30 0 (F ed . C ir. 20 07 ). I n Ne wh ouse , the Federal Circuit uphel d thi s Court's finding of a non-prejudici al notice error, hol ding that w e h av e th e st atutor

y o bli gatio n to tak e into a cco unt whe the r pr eju dic iale rro r e xis ted , e ve n in the absence of a Board finding on that issue. Id. at 1302. The Federal Circuit, thus, dismissed the appellant 's argum ent that when not ice err or was found, the Court had to r emand the mat te r to the Board for it to det ermine in the fi rs t instanc e whether the e rror was harmless. Nowhere in the de cis ion do es Ne wh ouserel iev e th e S ecr etary o f h is b urd enun de r R ule28 (b) to art icu lat e h is c ase fo r no n-p rej ud ici al e rro r. I nd eed , th e Ne wh oused eci sio n go es on to q uo te Sa nd

ers wi th a pp rov al fo r th e p rop os iti on

that "the S

e c re ta r yis re q u ire d

to p e r s ua de th e [C]ourt tha t the purpose of the notic e wa s no t frustrated – e .g., by demonstrating ... that a ny defect in the not ice was cured by act ua l k no wl ed ge o n th e p art

of the cla im ant." Ne wh ouse , 497 F.3d at 1302 (quoting Sa nd ers , 487 F. 3d at 8 87 ) ( em

ph asi s ad de d). Th e Fe de ralC irc uit ' s dis cu ssion in Newhous eof review of the adm ini str ati ve rec ord

to m ak e a p rej ud ice de ter m inatio n m

us t b e rea d in the f

act ua l c ontext o f t

hat decision. In Mle ch ick, d eci de d a ft er Ne wh ouse , the Federal Circui t overruled thi s Judge's single-j udge decision, r elying on Pe leg rin i v. Pr inc ipi

, to f ind th at it wo uld

b e sp ecu lat ive and , th

us , im po ssible to a pp ly t he rul e o f pr eju dic ialerro r in c ert ain cir cum stanc es whe re t

he ap pe llant e sta

bli sh ed a n oti ce
error. Mle ch ick

v. Man sfi eld, 50 3 F. 3d

134 0, 134 4 (F ed . C ir. 20 07 ); see also Pele grini v. Princ ipi , 18 Vet.App. 112, 120 (2004). Mle ch ick cites both Sa nd

ers and Ne wh ousein its deci sion, stat ing: Given this framework [i.e., the framework established in Sa nd ers and Ne wh ouse ], the19

Veterans Court s hould have first pr esumed that any inadequaci es in the not ice [Mr.] Mlechick r eceived were pr ej ud ic ia l. Se e [ Sa nd ers , 487 F.3d at 889]. Next, the Veterans Court should have de termined wh eth er V A h ad ov erc om e the presumption that th e n oti ce e rro r w as p rej ud ici al by demonstrating that the " error di d not affect the essential fa irn ess of

the ad jud icatio n. " Id . In

co nd uc tin g th is i nq

uir y th e Veterans Court can revi ew the entir e "recor d of t he p ro ce edings before the Sec retary a nd the Board" in dete rmining whether an error was non-prejudic ial. Ne wh ouse [, 497 F.3d at 1302]; 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(2). Thus, the Vet erans Court's i nquiry should have included a review of the record to det ermine i f VA had met its burden of showing that theno tic e er

ro r w as no n-p rej ud

ici al. 503 F.3d at 1345 (emphasis added)

. In short, i n assessing the prejudicial eff ect of a notice e rror, the Co urt ' s rev iewof th e adm ini str ati ve reco rd is not inten de d to be an unres tra ine d rev iewbut i s li m ite d to determining the val idity of the Secr etary's allega tions thatthe errorin the noti ce was not pre jud ici al. Most rece ntly, the Feder al Circuitdecided Wil so n v . Ma ns

fie ld

. 50 6 F .3 d 1 055 (Fed. C ir. 20 07 ). In Wilson , the issue was whether secti on § 5103(a) requi res VA to adv is e th e veteran of precisel y what evidence was missing in hi s claims file in orderfor the c laim to be successful. The Federal Circuit found section 5103(a) was not so inclusive

. Wilson is sig nif icant, how ev er, in t

hat the Fe deral Circ uit , a s th e m ajo rity d oe s h ere , re co gn ize s th e exten siv e n ature o f t he pro ced ure s inv olv ed in th e ad jud icatio n of

a c lai m f or VAb en ef

its. Id

. at1 060-62. Unlike the c onclusion drawn by the majority, however, Wilson does not hold that thos e procedures provide an al ternati ve basis for finding section 5103(a) noti ce compliance. Indeed, Wilson cit es Sa nd ers and th e F ed era l Circuit's decisi on in Mayfield fo r th e p rop os iti on that se cti on

51 03 (a) no tic e is int en de d to req uir e VAto pr ov ide af

fi rm ati ve no tif

icatio n to the cla im ant prior to the init ial deci sion in the c ase, and
no t th at p os t-a dju dic ato ry p roc ed ure s can s erv e to ren de r a not ice erro r non -pr eju dic ialthr ou ghthe ir
ex ist en ce a lon e. Id. at 1062.

2. Application of

the Federal Circ uit Decisi ons to the Maj ority Opinion In consider ing the appli cation of recentFederal Circ uit prece dent in thi s case, itis important to n ote that, ot

he r than anargum ent bas ed on our no w d ef

un ct May fie ld an aly sis , th e on lyargument
m ad e b y th e S ecr etary t

hat any n oti ce e rro r s ho uld b e fo un d harm les s is that M r. Va sq ue z-F lor es h ad act ua l kn ow led ge of

the no tic e ele m ents and , th us , th e p urp os e f

or whic h th e n oti ce r eq

uir em ent w asA f t er t he Feder al C i r cui t ' s deci si on i n Sa nd ers , b o th pa rties w e re giv e n t h e o p p o rtu n ity to su p p le m e n t t h e ir 4
a rg u m e n ts w ith re g a rd to p reju d ic ia l erro r. See M i sc . O rd er N o . 1 4 -07 (July 3 , 2 0 0 7 ) ( en ba n c o rde r)

. T h e S ec retary c h o se n o t t o d o so in th is c a se .

R ul e 28( b) ( 1) s t at es i n f ul l : " The Secret ary m ust f i l e a br i ef

, w hi ch must conf

or m t o t he r equi r em ent s of 5 subs ect i on ( a) , but a s t at em ent of t he i ss ues or of

t he cas e need not be m ade unl es s t he Secr et ar y i s di ss at i sf i ed w i t h t he app el l ant' s st at em ent. " 20 instituted was not frustr ated. 4 The majority makes several importa ntomissions when quoting the abundance of recent Federal Circ uit prece dent regar ding secti on 5103(a) noti ce. Although the majority c ites S a n d e rs and this Court's Rule 28(a) for the proposit ion that " an appel lant gener ally must demonstrate error ," the words "demonstrate err or" only appea r in Sa nd ers , whic h e xp lai ns that it s h old ing"do e s n ot d isp lac e the rule that the cl aimant bears the burde n of de mo ns tra ting e rro r in the [secti on 5013(a)] notice." Se e an te at 8 ; seeals o Sa nd ers , 487 F.3d at 891 (citing Rule 28( a)) (emphasis added) . However, the
m ajo rity f ail s to fi nd

that th is r ule ap pli es t o the Sec ret ary und er R ule 28(b ), whic h m ak es R

ule 28 (a) ap pli cab le t o th e S ecr etary' s bri ef ingas w ell

. Th is i s im

po rtant whe re, as h ere , th e m ajo rity w ou ld 5 seek t o impose a pleading requirement on an appell ant to show a noti ce error , but would not, in turn, req uir e the Sec ret ary

to so pl ead

a theo ry un de r wh ich

the all eg ed

err or did no t res ult in pre jud ice

. As expla ine d b elo w, the majority wou ld d ecl ine to d o s o, as i t w ou ld p ref er t o c on du ct an unrestra ined searc h of the record to l ook to post-ini tial- adjudicat ion procedure s to support findi ngs of no prejudice in c ases where the Secretary is otherwis e unable to r ebut th e pr es umpt io n of a prejudici al not ice error. Cf . S an de rs , 48 7 F .3 d at 88 9 (" [W ]e ho ld t hat th e [ sec tio n 5 10 3(a )] no tic e
err ors sh ou ld b e p res um ed pre jud ici al, req

uir ingrev ers al unle ss t

he VA can

sh owthat th e er

ror did
no t af fe ct t he ess entia l f

air ne ss o f t he ad jud icatio n. "); seeals o Mlech ick, 50 3 F . 3 d at 13 45 (sam e). The majority's applica tion is wrong on two counts. First, the Secretary failed to make any argument that procedur es following the initi al adjudicati on eliminated the presumptive prejudic e of the notice er

ror . B eca

us e o f t his ple ad ingfa ilure, an d b eca us e th e S ecr etary p res ented no oth er via ble argum ents that any n oti ce e rro rs w ere ren de red no n-p rej udicial, rever salis r eq uir ed un de r Sa nd ers . Sa nd ers , 4 87 F. 3d

at 8 89 ; seeals o U.S. V ET .A PP
. R. 28 (b) . S eco nd , th e F ed era l C irc uit has on several occasions expr essed its view that post -adjudica tion procedur es alone cannotsatisfy th e f un d am e nta l p urp o s e f

o r wh ic hth e p re -a d

ju d ic ati o nn o ti c e r e qu ir e m e nts o f 5 1 0 3 (a ) w ere establ ishe d. Se e S

an de rs , 487 F. 3d at 886 ("VA's duty to notify cannot be s atisfied 'by variousSee 3 8 U .S .C . § 5 1 0 3 (a ) (re q u iring V A to p ro v id e n o tice to a c la im a n t u p o n re c e ip t o f a "s u b sta n tially 6
c o m p le te a p p lica tion " fo r b e n e fits); see also 38 U

. S. C

. § 7105( b) ( N ot i ce of D i sa gr eement " sha l l be f i l ed w i t hi n one ye ar f r om t he da t e of

m ai l i ng t he not i ce of

t he r es ul t of

t he i ni t i alre v ie w o r d e te rm in a tion " (e m p h a sis a d d e d )); see also 38 U

. S. C

. § 7105( a) ( "A ppel l at e r evi ew w i l l be i ni t i at ed by a [ N ] ot i ce of [ D ] i sa gr eement and c om pl et ed by a [ S] ubst ant i ve [ A] p p e a l a f

t e r a s t a t e m e n t o f

t h e c a s e i s f

u r n i s h e d

. . . . " )

. T h e r e a r e , i n m y v i e w, t h r e e d i s t i n c t s t a g e s i n t h e VA adj udi cat i on pr oces s: The i ni t i al dec i si on, appe l l at e s t at us at t he a gency of or i gi nal j ur i sdi ct i on ( w hi ch i s t r i gger ed by a N o t i ce of D i sa g ree m en t ), an d t h e a p p ea l t o t h e B o ard (w h i ch co m m en ce s w i t h t h e fi l i n g of the S u b stan t i v e A p p ea l ). T he F ede r al C i r cuit ' s Sa nd ers h o l d i n g t h a t p r o p e r n o t i c e mu s t b e p r o v i d e d b e f o r e t h e i n i t i a l a d

j u d i c a t i o n i s , i n m y v i e w, l ogi cal l y w i t hi n t hi s f

r am ew or k. 21 po st- de cis ion al c om

m un icatio ns f

rom whic h a cla im ant m ight h av e be ena ble to inf er what ev ide nc e the VAfo un d la ck ingin th e cla im ant' s pre sentat ion ,' as suc h po st- de cis ion al no tic es d o n ot c ontai n the same content or serve the s ame purpose as § 5103(a) noti fication." ( quoting May fie ld, 444 F.3d at1 33 3- 34 ))

. T he maj or ity's a tt empth er e to e st ab li shtha t th e no ti ce mayb e pr ov id edatany t ime pr io r t o the Boa rd 's d ec is io n–th e d ec is io n we re vi ew–i s c le ar lya to dd s w ith the Fe de ra l C ir cu it 's holding in May

fie ld and with the purpos e of section 5013(a)

. Se e an te n. 2; seeals o Ma yfi eld, 444 F. 3d at 1 33 3 ("T he purpo se o f [ sec tio n 5 10 3(a )] an d th e co rre sp on din g re gu lat ion is t o re qu ire that the VA provide affirmative notificati on to the cla imant prior to the i nitial decision i n th e ca se . . . . [ an d] is n ot s ati sf

ied byvario us po st- de cis ion al c om m un icatio ns . . . . "). Th e m ajo rity' s v iew would, in effect, define the "initial decisi on" as the B oard decision. Given the clear st atements of the Federal Circuit i n its deci sion in May fie ld an d in its po st -Mayfi eld decisions t o the contra ry, such an interpretati on is simply wrong. I do not suggestt ha t th e Cou rt is pr ohibited from
co ns ide rin g, in a

parti cu lar

cas e, the fa cts that occ ur i n th e VA a dju dic ati on sch em e al on g w ithoth er facts in the r ecord in orde r to determine, upon proper pleading by the S ec ret ary, that de spite not receivi ng proper 5103(a) notice, the purpose of 5103(a) noti ce has not been frustrated and thus the cla im ' s ad jud icatio n h as b een

esse nti all y fa ir. Ho we ve r thi s Co urt mu st no t ig no re the im

po rtanc e of pre-initi al-deci sion secti on 5103(a) noti ce, consist ently rei nforced by the Federal Circuit. By
m ak ingthe Bo ard

deci sio n the point by whic h af fi rm ati ve noti ce m

us t be pro vid ed , it

is the m ajo rity that puts b lin de rs o n th e C ourt' s co ns ide ration o f p rej ud ici al e rro r by de ter m ini ngthat th e m ere parti cip ati on

in t he VAadju dic ati on

sche m e alo ne sho uld

era se t he pre jud ici al e ff

ect of a 5 10 3(a ) notice violati on. If Congress, in enact ing secti on 5013(a), and the Federal Circ uit, in int erpreti ng 6 it, meant for such a gapi ng except ion to the rule of prejudici al errorto exist, s urely itwould have ref err ed to t he adm ini str ati ve pro ces s in co ns ideringpre

jud ice . Ho we ve r, it

ha s n ot. Ind eed , in

its22

decision i n May

fie ld, the Federal Circuitfo und just the oppos ite; i t found a 5103(a) noti ce error when the Bo ard considered noti ces provided t o Ms. Mayfield afterthe init ial regi onal office decision but be fo re s he fi led

he r S ub stanti ve Ap pe al t o th e B oard a s sat isf yin g 51 03 (a) no tic e re qu ire m ents.

Sa nd ers provides thr ee examples of situations that, if proven by the Secret ary, could re but the presumption of prejudice

. Sa nd ers , 4 87 F. 3d

at 8 89 . T he m ajo rity in

thi s ca se s ub tlyign ore s the re qu ir ement of reversal, i nstead finding tha t where the Secr etary has notrebutted the presumption of prejudi ce and the three enumerated examples do not apply, r eversal may merely be "w arr anted ." An te at 9

. T his is s o be cau se wi tho ut ign ori ngth e rev ers al req uir em ent, t

he m ajo rity
co uld no t attem

pt t o c reate a

new route t o a

fi nd ingof

no pre jud ice , s tat ingthat th e C ourt s ho uld "co ns ide r whe the r th e p os t-a dju dic ato ry n oti ce and op po rtunit

y to d ev elo p the cas e th at i s p rov ide d during the ext ensive administrat ive appell ate procee dings leadi ng to the final Board de cisio n . . .
ser ve d to ren de r any p re- ad

jud icator y n oti ce e rro r no n-p rej ud ici al. " Id. at 9 -10 ; seean te n.2. The Federal Circuit has had several opportuniti es, discusse d su pra , to pr ov ide ad dit ion al e xam ple s th at
wo uld requ ire rev ers al whe re a

no tic e er ror ex ist s, but ha s n ot i nd icated that th e po st- ad

ju di ca tory process al one could serve to cur e such notice deficiencies

. See Wils on , 5 06 F. 3d at 1 06 2 (" W ith in this detaile d procedural scheme, section 5103(a) serves to facilitat e the claim process by ensur ing 'that the clai mant be given the requir ed information prior to the VA's decision ont he cla im and
en ab les the cla im ant to un de rst an d th e p roc ess . . . . ' "). The point of the pre jud ice an aly sis in Sa nd ers is t o e ns ure "th at the purpo se o f t he n oti ce wa s no t f

rus trated ." Sa nd

ers , 487 F.3d at 889. I cannot agree with my coll eagues thatthe Court can, su a s po nte , lo ok

on ly t o th e p os t-a dju dic ato ry proceedings t o find that the purpose o f pr oviding clai mants with proper pre-a djudicatory section 5103(a) noti ce was not frustra ted. By expand ingthe rec og niz ed "ex am ple s" t o the pre

jud ice an aly sis be yo nd

tho se e nd ors ed bythe Fed era l Cir cu it, the m ajo rity, at a m ini m um , in du ces co nf

us ion reg ard ingho w this Co urt is to apply thi s mysterious fourth example in dete rmining whether a not ic e erro r is pr ejudicia l. By judgin g th e prejudic ial effect of inadequate notice in t erms of the subsequent adjudica tion of the claim, I believe the Court runs afoul of the ori ginal purpose of the duty t o notify. Although the
m a jo ri ty re f e rs to th e F e d e ra l C ir c u it ' s re c e nt Newhous ede cis ion to s up po rt i ts v iewthat it m ay scour the r ecord for supp ort of a finding of no prejudic e in the abse nce of allegati ons by the23

Se cre tar y, no wh ere in t

he Ne wh ousedecision, norin Mle ch ick or Wilson d oe s the Fe de ralCi rcu it abandon Sa nd

ers ' co mm an d to reverse the Bo ard ' s d eci sio n if the Se cre tar

y f ail s to fu lf

ill his ob lig ati on

to r eb ut t he pre sum

pti on of pre jud ice

. N or do th os e de cis ion s su gg est that th e C ourt c an
us e o nly the ap pe llate h istory of a c lai m to f ind that th e p urp os e o f p re- de cis ion al n oti ce w as satisfied. I ndeed, in the di ssent from the denial of full-Court consider ation in Overton , three jud ge s of thi s Co urt

beli ev ed that the m ajo rity ha d im

pro pe rlyshif

ted its fo cu s aw ayfro m

co m pli an ce w ith the duty to not ify prior to the initi al adjudic ation. Se e Overton , 2 0 V et. Ap p. at 5 00 (en banc ; H ag el, J. , D av is, J. , and

Sc ho ele n, J. , diss enting ) (" Th e ef fe ct o f t he Co urt ' s d eci sio n is that co m pli an ce with secti on 5103(a) now plays se cond fiddle to this Court 's determination as t o whether a cla imant engaged in 'meaningful participati on' in the processing of the c laim."). Fi na lly , and

pe rha ps m os t si gn if

icantl y, the m ajo rity, af

ter advo cat ingthe ir n ewex am ple , finds that ithas no applica ti onin this case, r endering the exercise contained i n sections A(4) and A( 5) q uintes sentia l ob ite r d

ict a . Se e , e.g. , B LACK ' S L A W D I CT I ONAR Y 110 0 (7 th e d. 19 99 ) (" A jud icial comm ent m ad e d uri ngthe co urs e o f d eli ve rin g a jud ici al o pin ion , b ut o ne that is unnecessary t o the decisi on in the case and therefore not precede ntial." ). The majority's creation of
a n ewex am

ple by whic h the Co urt

m ayfi nd a n oti ce e rro r no n-p rej udici al whe n th at e xam ple is neithe r a pp lic ab le in thi s cas e no r argu ed b y the p art ies , is far f

rom n ece ssary to the re so lution of thi s ca se. At best i t can b e sa id t hat th e m ajo rity re co gn ize s an iss ue that m ayso m ed aybe rai sed and thus requi re resol ution by the Court , but its at tempt here to a nswer a questi on not disposit ive of the ap pe al r en de rs the dis cu ssi on no n-p rec ed entia l. For reasons unknown to me a nd despite the Federal Cir cuit's continued i nsistence on
co m pli an ce w iththe pre- ad

judicator y no tic e req

uir em ents of

the Ve ter an s C lai m s A ssi stanc e A ct,
my c olleagues persi st i n th eir qu est to f ind no pre jud ice thr ou gha re vie w o f p os t-a dju dic ato ry pro ced ure s. As a

c on seq ue nc e, I co nc ur on ly in the re su lt an d ag ain v oic e my co nc ern

w ith the majority's language as it am ounts to the subtle yet clear m inimization of the duty to notify. In the
en d, I di sagree wi th m

y c oll eague s to the extent tha t t hey m ight su gg est that an ap pe llant' s p os tadjudicat ory parti cipation i n the overal l VA appellate pr ocess could alone render a duty-t o-notify
err or n on -pr eju dic ial , th eir ap parent vi ewthat th e Co urt , in se cti on 510 3(a ) not ice cas es, is f ree to
search the record for reas on s n ot p led bythe Se cre tar

y in ord er t o f

ind harm les s er

ror , and the ir fa ilure t o p rop erl y a

pp ly t he lawof the Fe de ralCi rcu it.