Link to original post
Designated for electronic publication only
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
THOMAS W. STALLINGS, APPELLANT,
ROBERT L. WILKIE,
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.
Before FALVEY, Judge.
Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),
this action may not be cited as precedent.
FALVEY, Judge: Air Force veteran Thomas W. Stallings appeals through counsel a
September 26, 2018, Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision that found that new and material
evidence had not been submitted to reopen claims based on low back problems and bilateral
hearing loss and, in addition, denied service connection for Meniere’s disease.1 This appeal is
timely, the Court has jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision, and single-judge disposition is
appropriate. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a), 7266(a); Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 23, 25-26
We are asked to decide whether the Board correctly denied reopening of the previously
denied claims based on low back problems and bilateral hearing loss. We are also asked to decide
whether the Board properly denied service connection for Meniere’s disease. Regarding the low
back claim, the Board clearly erred in finding that new and material evidence had not been
1 The Board also reopened and remanded a claim based on bursitis and tendonitis of the right shoulder. We
may not disturb the Board’s favorable finding regarding reopening, see Medrano v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 165, 170-
71 (2007), and we lack authority to address its nonfinal remand decision, see Breeden v. Principi, 17 Vet.App. 475,
478 (2004) (a Board remand “does not represent a final decision over which this Court has jurisdiction”). Additionally,
the Board remanded matters based on upper thoracic and cervical
Read the full thread below
Single Judge Application; § 3.156; Reopen claim; Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 110, 117 (2010) (holding that § 3.156(a) "suggests a standard that would require reopening if newly submitted evidence, combined with VA assistance and considering the other evidence of record, raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim"); the language of § 3.156(a) did "not require new and material evidence as to each previously unproven element of a claim"; instead, it compelled reopening whenever a claimant submitted new and material evidence "as to an unestablished fact from the previously denied claim." Shade, 24 Vet.App. at 121;
Designated for electronic publication onlyUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMSNo. 19-0529THOMAS W. STALLINGS, APPELLANT,V.ROBERT L. WILKIE,SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.Before FALVEY, Judge.MEMORANDUM DECISIONNote: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),this action may not be cited as precedent.FALVEY, Judge: Air Force veteran Thomas W. Stallings appeals through counsel aSeptember 26, 2018, Board of Veterans'...