![Single Judge Application; 38 C.F.R. § 19.2(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.S.C. § 5108 (2018) (emphasis added); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2019). However, 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) provides an exception to this rule. Paragraph (c)(1) provides, in pertinent part, “at any time after VA issues a decision on a claim, if VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA will reconsider the claim.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1);](https://hadit.com/wp-content/uploads/AdobeStock_68337228.jpeg)
Link to original post
Designated for electronic publication only
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
No. 19-4274
THOMAS R. GOODE, APPELLANT,
V.
ROBERT L. WILKIE,
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.
Before MEREDITH, Judge.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),
this action may not be cited as precedent.
MEREDITH, Judge: The pro se appellant, Thomas R. Goode, appeals a June 5, 2019,
Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision that denied entitlement to disability compensation
for tinnitus. Record (R.) at 2-9. This appeal is timely, and the Court has jurisdiction to review the
Board’s decision pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and 7266(a). Single-judge disposition is
appropriate. See Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 23, 25-26 (1990). For the following reasons,
the Court will vacate the Board’s decision and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent
with this decision.
I. BACKGROUND
The appellant served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from September 1989 to September
1993, with additional Reserve service from 1995 to 2005. R. at 309; see R. at 184-90, 195, 214. In
August 2016, a VA regional office (RO) continued the prior denial of the appellant’s disability
compensation claim for tinnitus; the RO found no evidence of an in-service event, injury, or
disease, continuity of symptomatology, or a nexus to service. R. at 406-23. The appellant requested
that VA reopen his claim in December 2017; he asserted that he was exposed to jet engine noises
and heavy equipment during his work as an aviation electronics specialist and submitted a private
2
physician’s nexus opinion and a statement from his cousin. R. at 317. The RO denied his request
in February 2018. R. at 198-215. Later that
Read the full thread below
Single Judge Application; 38 C.F.R. § 19.2(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.S.C. § 5108 (2018) (emphasis added); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2019). However, 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) provides an exception to this rule. Paragraph (c)(1) provides, in pertinent part, "at any time after VA issues a decision on a claim, if VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA will reconsider the claim." 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1);
Designated for electronic publication onlyUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMSNo. 19-4274THOMAS R. GOODE, APPELLANT,V.ROBERT L. WILKIE,SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.Before MEREDITH, Judge.MEMORANDUM DECISIONNote: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),this action may not be cited as precedent.MEREDITH, Judge: The pro se appellant, Thomas R.
