Patrick M. Overton v. Robert L. Wilkie

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 17-0125

PATRICK M. OVERTON, APPELLANT,

V.

ROBERT L. WILKIE,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals

(Argued June 20, 2018 Decided September 19, 2018)

Jerome T. Wolf, of Kansas City, Missouri, for the appellant.

Jeremy Yung-Ping Wong, with whom James M. Byrne, General Counsel; Mary Ann Flynn,

Chief Counsel; and Sarah H. Fusina, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, all of Washington, D.C., were

on the brief for the appellee.

Before DAVIS, Chief Judge, and PIETSCH and ALLEN, Judges.

ALLEN, Judge: In Gray v. McDonald, 1 this Court held that VA's interpretation of 38

C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) designating Da Nang Harbor as an offshore waterway, while designating

other bays and harbors as inland waterways, was arbitrary and capricious.2 The Court remanded

the matter for VA to reevaluate its waterway definitions in light of the purpose of the regulation—

to provide compensation based on the probability of herbicide exposure.3 In February 2016, VA

modified its definition of "inland waterways" in its Adjudications Procedures Manual (M21-1),4

opting not to adopt a formal regulation in title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations and, thereby,

obviating the requirement for notice-and-comment under the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA).5 The new M21-1 provision excluded all Vietnamese bays and harbors from the definition

1

27 Vet. App. 313 (2015).

2

Id. at 326-27.

3

Id.

4

VA ADJUDICATIONS PROCEDURES MANUAL (M21-1), pt. IV, sbpt. ii, ch. 1, sec. H.2.a (Feb. 2018). The

provision was last updated in March 2018.

5

See 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(1)(D), 553; see also DAV v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 859 F.3d 1072, 1077 (Fed.

Cir. 2017) ("There is no notice-and-comment rulemaking for [M21-1] revisions as required by § 553.").

of "inland waterways."6 In June 2017, the Federal Circuit decided DAV v. Secretary of Veterans

Affairs, in which it held that the M21-1 is an internal manual used to guide VA adjudicators and

does not establish substantive rules.7 The Federal Circuit specifically noted that the Board is not

bound by the M21-1.8

Before us today is U.S. Navy veteran Patrick M. Overton who served on active duty from

March 1967 to February 1968, including service aboard the U.S.S. Providence while it operated

and anchored in Da Nang Harbor from October to December 1967. He appeals a November 1,

2016, Board of Veterans' Appeals decision that denied service connection for type II diabetes

mellitus with retinopathy and ischemic heart disease, both including as due to herbicide exposure.9

The Board concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated actual exposure to herbicides and

also that he was not entitled to the presumption of exposure.10 The Board relied on the modified

M21-1 provision to deny the appellant's claims concerning presumptive herbicide exposure.11 Yet,

the Board did not discuss why it relied on the M21-1. The appeal is timely, and the Court has

jurisdiction to review the Board's November 2016 decision.12 This matter was referred to a panel

of the Court primarily to address the Board's reliance on VA's new M21-1 provision. The Court

will also address the basis for its reasoning in Gray.

As we explain below, the Court holds that when relying on any M21-1 provision, the Board

must independently review the matter the M21-1 addresses. If after such review, the Board chooses

to rely on the M21-1 as a factor in its analysis or as the rule of decision, it must provide adequate

reasons or bases for doing so. The Board may not simply rely on the nonbinding M21-1 position

without analysis. Because the Board did not engage in the appropriate analysis here, the Court will

set aside the November 1, 2016, Board decision and remand the matter for readjudication

consistent with this decision. Given this disposition, the Court declines to opine on the content of

6

M21-1, pt. IV, sbpt. ii, ch. 1, sec. H.2.a.

7

859 F.3d at 1077-78.

8

Id. at 1077; see also Gray v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 875 F.3d 1102, 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (affirming the

Federal Circuit's position in DAV that the Board is not bound by M21-1 provisions).

9

Record (R.) at 2-19.

10

R. at 8-19.

11

R. at 14 ("The new guidance is that all harbors and bays are considered offshore, while all rivers and deltas

are considered inland.").

12

38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and 7266(a).

2

the revised M21-1 provision on which the Board relied. And, finally, the Court will also remand

the decision concerning direct exposure because the Board's analysis may be affected by the

actions it takes on remand concerning presumptive exposure.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This matter stems from the appellant's timely Substantive Appeal of a May 2013 VA

regional office denial of his claims for benefits for type II diabetes, diabetic retinopathy secondary

to diabetes, and ischemic heart disease.13

In January 2016, the appellant's private physician, Chris Martin, M.D., opined that the

appellant's diabetes may have been caused by exposure to herbicides.14 The appellant submitted a

statement to VA explaining that he had experienced headaches while he was aboard the U.S.S.

Providence, he reported odd smells, and observed that his headaches lessened in intensity when

the ship departed Da Nang Harbor.15 In March 2016, another private physician, Michael Sokol,

M.D., opined that it is at least as likely as not that the appellant was exposed to Agent Orange,

which accounts for his development of type 2 diabetes.16 He noted that the appellant did not have

any genetic predisposition to diabetes, which makes it more likely that his exposure to Agent

Orange "is the likely precipitant" to that condition.17 Dr. Martin's and Dr. Sokol's opinions are the

only etiological medical evidence of record.

In November 2016, the Board issued the decision on appeal denying the appellant's claims.

The Board reviewed the appellant's lay statements that he had been exposed to herbicides while

aboard the U.S.S. Providence to provide support for combat troops. The Board generally explained

that because "inland waterways" are not defined in VA regulations, it would look to the M21-1 for

interpretive guidance, which stated that "the following locations are considered to be offshore

waters of the Republic of Vietnam: Da Nang Harbor, Nha Trang Harbor, Qui Nhon Bay Harbor,

Cam Rahn Bay Harbor, Vung Tau Bay Harbor, and Ganh Rai Bay."18 Moreover, the Board cited

13

R. at 1428 (initial claim for benefits), 1642 (May 2013 VA rating decision), 1380-81 (Notice of

Disagreement), and 1334 (Aug. 2014 Substantive Appeal).

14

R. at 391.

15

R. at 274-75.

16

R. at 418-19.

17

R. at 629.

18

R. at 10.

3

our decision in Gray v. McDonald and stated that, as a result of the Court's decision in that matter,

VA had updated its policy to treat all bays and harbors in the same way concerning the inland—

versus—offshore classification and the M21-1 now provided that "all harbors and bays are

considered offshore, while all rivers and deltas are considered inland."19

After providing this general explanation, the Board addressed the appellant's claim

specifically both on a direct and presumptive exposure basis. As to direct exposure, the Board

discounted the appellant's lay statements finding that he had not demonstrated that he was

competent to identify herbicides to which he might have been exposed, and the Board provided

little probative value to the private medical evidence of record. 20 Thus, the Board denied

entitlement on a direct basis for lack of nexus evidence. The Board made short work of entitlement

to service connection on a presumptive basis because the M21-1 categorically excluded harbors,

such as Da Nang, from presumptive exposure to Agent Orange.21 The Board adopted that position

without discussing why it had decided to follow the M21-1's guidance.22 This appeal followed.

II. PARTIES' ARGUMENTS

The appellant argues that his service aboard the U.S.S. Providence supports his claims for

service connection for diabetes and ischemic heart disease. First, he asserts that he is entitled to

the presumption of service connection based on herbicide exposure. He argues that the Board erred

when it, without analyzing the probability of herbicide exposure, found he was excluded from the

presumption by relying on a an M21-1 provision that service aboard a ship anchored in Da Nang

Harbor did not constitute inland waterway service. He alleges that the Board essentially rendered

the same analysis that the Court rejected in Gray, and thus, remand is warranted.

Further in connection with the presumption, the appellant seeks clarification of the Court's

decision in Gray to ensure that VA applies the proper standard of review in matters like his. He

asserts that the Board is required to determine, based on the particular evidence in his case, whether

it is at least as likely as not that there were levels of herbicides present in Da Nang Harbor sufficient

19

R. at 10.

20

R. at 8-19.

21

R. at 14.

22

Id.

4

to justify the herbicide exposure presumption, not whether it is probable that he was exposed to

herbicides.

Finally, the appellant claims that, regardless of the presumption, he established the

likelihood of direct herbicide exposure. He argues that the Board's contrary finding is either clearly

erroneous or not supported by an adequate statement of reasons or bases.

The Secretary responds that the Board properly applied VA's policy according to the law

and this Court's Gray decision. He asserts that the Gray Court focused on the inconsistency of

deeming certain harbors as "inland waterways" and designating others "offshore waterways,"

"only finding issue with the inconsistent manner in which it was previously done."23 He also asserts

that since VA revised its policy, it is no longer inconsistent because it establishes a firm, bright-

line rule—exclusion of service in all bays and harbors from presumptive herbicide exposure. And

as to direct exposure, the Secretary argues that the Board's decision was not erroneous and was

supported by adequate reasons or bases.

At oral argument, the appellant insisted that remand in light of the Court's decision in Gray

is warranted for the Board to find independently whether he is entitled to the presumption based

on the probability of exposure. He explained that VA's guidance set forth in the M21-1 is erroneous

because geographical line drawing fails to take into account the probability of herbicide exposure.

In other words, he argues that to determine whether Da Nang Harbor is an inland waterway, the

Board must assess the evidence based on the probability that a veteran's presence in the harbor

would likely lead to herbicide exposure, and not simply rely on VA's general conclusion set forth

in the M21-1.

Though the Secretary did not argue in his brief that VA's current policy on distinguishing

between inland and offshore waterways is based on a reasonable interpretation of its own

regulation—38 C.F.R. § 3.307—and warrants Auer deference, he raised that argument for the first

time at oral argument.24 He further explained that because the M21-1 contains evidence of this

interpretation, which he argues was formally set forth in the Federal Circuit's Gray v. Secretary of

Veterans Affairs decision, the Board's reliance on the M21-1 for guidance was proper.

23

Secretary's Brief (Br.) at 10.

24

Oral Argument at 29:15-30:26, Overton v. Wilkie, U.S. Vet.App. No 17-0125, (oral argument held on June

20, 2018) (referencing Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461-62. (1997) http://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/

oral_arguments_audio.php.

5

III. ANALYSIS

The appellant bases his argument for service connection on two theories. First, he argues

that he should be entitled to the presumption that he was exposed to herbicides and, therefore, his

conditions are service connected. 25 Second, he asserts that even if he is not entitled to the

presumption of exposure, he has sufficiently established actual exposure to Agent Orange. We

address each theory below.

A. Presumptive Service Connection

Veterans who "served in the Republic of Vietnam" between January 9, 1962, and May 7,

1975, are presumed to have been exposed to certain herbicides, including Agent Orange.26 And a

second presumption provides that certain conditions, including type II diabetes and ischemic heart

disease, are the result of such exposure.27 "Service in the Republic of Vietnam includes service in

the waters offshore and service in other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or

visitation in the Republic of Vietnam."28 In Haas v. Peake, the Federal Circuit examined the

validity of limiting the herbicide presumption to service members who set foot on land in Vietnam

or who served in the inland waterways of that nation.29 The court concluded that it was reasonable

for VA to make such distinctions based on the probability of exposure to herbicides.30

In Gray v. McDonald, this Court considered VA's regulation designating certain

Vietnamese bays and harbors as "inland waterways" (brown water) or "offshore seas" (blue water)

in light of Haas.31 The Court explained that VA's definition of "inland waterway" was arbitrary

and capricious because it designated some harbors and bays as brown water and some as blue

water without basing the designations on the probability of herbicide exposure, including exposure

to Agent Orange.32 Therefore, the Court determined that VA's interpretation was not entitled to

deference and remanded the matter for VA to reevaluate its definition.33

25

See 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (2018).

26

Id.

27

38 U.S.C. §1116(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii).

28

38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii).

29

525 F.3d 1168, 1185, 1192-93 (Fed. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1149 (2009).

30

Id.

31

27 Vet.App. at 313.

32

See, e.g., id. at 322-23.

33

Id. at 321-27.

6

Less than a year after our decision in Gray, VA modified its policy in the M21-1, adopting

an interpretation that excluded all Vietnamese bays and harbors from the herbicide presumption.

VA redefined inland waterways as

water rivers, streams, and canals, and similar waterways. Because these waterways

are distinct from ocean waters and related coastal features, service in these

waterways is service in the [Republic of Vietnam]. VA considers inland waterways

to end at their mouth or junction to other offshore water features, as described

below. For rivers and other waterways ending on the coastline, the end of the inland

waterway will be determined by drawing straight lines across the opening in the

landmass leading to the open ocean or other offshore feature, such as a bay or inlet.

For the Mekong and other rivers with prominent deltas, the end of the inland

waterways will be determined by drawing a line across each opening in the

landmass leading to the open ocean.34

Shortly thereafter, Mr. Gray, along with the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans

Association, directly petitioned the Federal Circuit to invalidate this change to the M21-1. 35

Ultimately, the Federal Circuit concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the M21-1, and

dismissed the direct regulatory challenge.36 The Federal Circuit concluded it lacked jurisdiction to

consider the challenge because the Board is not bound by the M21-1. 37 This meant that the

provision being challenged was not "substantive" under the APA.38

Putting all this together, we know first that VA is permitted to draw reasonable lines

demarcating inland versus offshore waterways when considering whether a veteran is entitled to

the presumption of herbicide exposure.39 Second, when drawing such a line, VA must do so in a

reasoned, nonarbitrary manner focused on the likelihood of herbicide exposure.40 And finally, the

Board is not bound by M21-1 provisions.41 With this guidance, the Court will evaluate the Board's

decision on appeal.

34

M21-1, pt. IV, sbpt. ii, ch. 1, sec. H.2.a.

35

Gray, 875 F.3d at 1102; see also 38 U.S.C. § 502.

36

Gray, 875 F.3d at 1109. The Federal Circuit denied rehearing and en banc review of its decision in Gray.

884 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

37

Gray, 875 F.3d at 1108-09.

38

Id. at 1108.

39

Haas, 525 F.3d at 1185-98.

40

See, e.g., 27 Vet.App. at 322-26.

41

Gray, 875 F.3d at 1108; DAV, 859 F.3d at 1077.

7

In the decision on appeal, the Board recounted much of the history we have set forth

concerning the presumption of herbicide exposure.42 The Board described the holding in Haas,

this Court's decision in Gray, and the subsequent revision of the M21-1.43 But the Board provided

nothing more than this historical recitation to support its conclusion that Da Nang Harbor is not

brown water warranting presumptive herbicide exposure. Instead, the Board tersely stated that the

"new guidance," referring to its earlier discussion of the M21-1 provision, deems all harbors or

bays offshore, and all rivers and deltas inland.44 This is error.

The Federal Circuit made it clear that the Board is not bound by the M21-1.45 This holding

is meaningful. To support its decision the Board can't simply cite an M21-1 provision without

further analysis. First, doing so would effectively negate the Federal Circuit's decisions in Gray

and DAV. Doing so would convert the M21-1 into substantive rules as a practical matter without

providing a means to challenge such rules under the APA. Second, because the M21-1 is not

binding on the Board, the Board's citation to a manual provision as the only support for a

conclusion–here that Da Nang Harbor is blue water–is inconsistent with the Board's

congressionally mandated obligation to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its

decisions.46

There is no question that the M21-1 provision defining "inland" and "offshore" waterways

is relevant to the issues at hand. Indeed, the Board referred to that provision as VA's "new

guidance."47 The Board can't ignore such a relevant provision. But it is equally insufficient for the

Board to simply rely on an M21-1 provision, like the one at issue here, without first independently

reviewing the matter. The Board is required to provide a reasoned explanation for why it finds the

M21-1 an accurate guideline for its decision. In other words, the Board is required to discuss any

relevant provisions contained in the M21-1 as part of its duty to provide adequate reasons or bases,

but because it is not bound by those provisions, it must make its own determination before it

chooses to rely on an M21-1 provision as a factor to support its decision. Therefore, the Court

42

R. at 8-10.

43

Id.

44

R. at 15.

45

Gray, 875 F.3d at 1108; DAV, 859 F.3d at 1077.

46

See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); see also Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517, 527 (1995); Gilbert v. Derwinski,

1 Vet.App. 49, 56-57 (1990).

47

R. at 16.

8

concludes that though the Board was correct in acknowledging the relevance of the M21-1

provision delineating inland and offshore waterways, the Board failed to explain in any way why

it relied on that position. This failure renders its statement of reasons or bases insufficient for

judicial review and necessitates remand.48

Further, the Board appears to suggest that an all-or-nothing rule, stating that all bays and

harbors are or are not inland waters, automatically alleviates the problem this Court identified in

Gray.49 This is not correct. The Court in Gray made clear that there must be some rationale for

deciding what makes a bay or harbor an inland or offshore waterway.50 Because there was no

rhyme or reason for why VA was designating some waterways but not others as inland waters, the

designation was inconsistent with the purpose of the regulation establishing the presumption—to

compensate veterans based on the probability or likelihood of exposure to herbicides.51 This was

the rationale for the Court's decision in Gray. The Board erred to understand otherwise. The issue

was not merely a lack of uniformity. Thus, on remand, the Board must explain why its

determination of entitlement to presumptive service connection is based on likely herbicide

exposure and achieves the purpose behind the regulation.52

Before moving on, the Court must address one final matter concerning presumptive

herbicide exposure. For the first time at oral argument, the Secretary suggested that the Court

should defer to his interpretation in the M21-1 under Auer v. Robins.53 This argument appears

nowhere in the Secretary's brief – indeed, Auer is not even cited.54 For three reasons, the Court

declines to consider deference under Auer.

48

See Tucker v. West, 11 Vet.App. 369, 374 (1998) (holding that remand is the appropriate remedy where

the Board has incorrectly applied the law, failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its

determinations, or where the record is otherwise inadequate); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 (1995),

aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table); Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 52.

49

R. at 10.

50

Gray, 27 Vet.App. at 322-26.

51

See, e.g., id. at 324-26.

52

The appellant rather confusingly argues that the Board misconstrued the Court's holding in Gray when it

analyzed the evidence of record based on whether it is probable that he was exposed, rather than rendering a

determination whether it is "at least as likely as not" that he was exposed to herbicides. See Appellant's Br. at 26-27.

He seems to argue that Gray adopted an evidentiary standard. It did not. Gray was concerned with whether a regulation

was lawful. It in no way changed any evidentiary standard or burden of proof.

53

Oral Argument at 29:15-30:26, http://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/oral_arguments_audio.php. (referring to

Auer v. Robins, 519 U.S. 452, 461-62 (1997)).

54

See generally Secretary's Br.

9

First, the Court has made clear that it "generally will not entertain arguments raised by

counsel at oral argument for the first time."55 Such conduct is not helpful to the Court and is

fundamentally unfair to opposing counsel. This alone is a reason not to consider the argument.56

Second, there is nothing special about deference under Auer that suggests that an argument

concerning that doctrine can't be waived by failing to raise it in the brief. Both this Court and the

Federal Circuit have specifically found Auer arguments to be subject to waiver.57

Third, even if the Auer argument had not been waived, it would be misplaced here. We are

not reviewing the position set forth in the M21-1. After all, the M21-1 provision is not a substantive

rule of law.58 Rather, we are reviewing the final Board decision on the appellant's claims.59 As we

explained, the Board's decision is deficient because the Board did not explain why it relied on the

M21-1 and its conclusions concerning the brown water/blue water distinctions for Vietnamese

harbors and bays. Thus, we are not called on to express any view about what the M21-1 says, and

we don't. In essence, there is nothing to defer to here because in terms of the Board's rationale for

adopting the M21-1's position, the Board's decision is deficient as a matter of law.

In sum, because the Board did not adequately explain the bases for its decision on

presumptive herbicide exposure, remand is required.60 We now turn briefly to the other issues this

appeal raises.

B. Direct Service Connection

"The availability of presumptive service connection for some conditions based on exposure

to Agent Orange does not preclude direct service connection for other conditions based on Agent

Orange exposure."61 Here, the Board also denied the appellant entitlement to service connection

55

Sellers v. Wilkie, 2018 WL 4040024, U.S. Vet. App. at *6 (Aug. 23, 2018); see also McFarlin v. Conseco

Servs., LLC, 381 F.3d 1251, 1263 (11th Cir. 2004) ("A party is not allowed to raise at oral argument a new issue for

review."); Pieczenik v. Dyax Corp., 265 F.3d 1329, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("It is well settled that an appellant is

not permitted to make new arguments that it did not make in its opening brief."); Tarpley v. Greene, 684 F.2d 1, 7

n.17 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ("Clearly, oral argument on appeal is not the proper time to advance new arguments or legal

theories."); Norvell v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 194, 201 (2008) ("This Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit have repeatedly discouraged parties from raising arguments that were not presented in an initial brief to the

Court").

56

See Sellers, 2018 2018 WL 4040024, at *6.

57

See Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. U.S., 782 F.3d 1354, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Norvell, 22 Vet.App. at 201.

58

See Gray, 875 F.3d at 1108; DAV, 859 F.3d at 1077-78.

59

See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and 7266(a).

60

See Tucker, 11 Vet.App. at 374.

61

Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 120, 123 (2007); see also Polovick v. Shinseki, 23 Vet.App. 48, 52-53

10

for type II diabetes and ischemic heart disease on a direct basis due to herbicide exposure. The

Board concluded that the weight of the probative evidence of record was against finding that the

appellant was exposed to herbicides while stationed aboard the U.S.S. Providence when it was in

Da Nang Harbor.62 The appellant argues that the Board's finding is clearly erroneous,63 or, in the

alternative, is not supported by an adequate statement of reasons or bases.64

The Court declines to address the appellant's arguments at this time. As explained above,

we are remanding this matter as it relates to presumptive service connection so that the Board may

adequately explain why Da Nang Harbor should or should not be considered brown water for

purposes of the presumption of herbicide exposure. Consistent with our decision in Gray, that

assessment must be made based on the likelihood of exposure to herbicides. The analysis (and

potential development associated with that effort) in which the Board may engage with respect to

the presumptive exposure question may affect the Board's assessment of direct exposure.

Given all of this, we are not confident that the direct exposure claim is sufficiently

independent of the presumptive exposure claim to resolve the matter at this point. For example,

we don't know how the Board will develop the record to support its conclusion on Da Nang

Harbor's status concerning presumptive herbicide exposure. That development could easily

implicate the direct exposure analysis. Thus, and given the potential interconnectedness of these

matters, we conclude that remand of the direct exposure theory is advisable.65

C. Other Matters

The appellant also challenges the Board's determination that VA's duty to assist has been

satisfied and claims that his due process rights have been violated. Because the Court has

determined that remand is necessary, it need not consider these arguments.66 In pursuing his case

on remand, the appellant is free to submit additional evidence and argument, including the specific

(2009).

62

R. at 14-16.

63

38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(4); see Dyment v. West, 13 Vet.App. 141, 144 (1999) (stating that a finding of service

connection, or a lack of service connection, is a finding of fact that the Court reviews under the "clearly erroneous"

standard).

64

See, e.g., Appellant's Br. at 17-20, 23-27.

65

See Smith v. Gober, 236 F.3d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that where the facts underlying two

claims are "intimately connected," the interests of judicial economy and of avoiding piecemeal litigation require the

claims to be appealed together).

66

Best v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 18, 20 (2001).

11

arguments raised here on appeal, and has 90 days to do so from the date of VA's post remand

notice.67 The Board is required to consider any such relevant evidence and argument. It must also

proceed expeditiously, in accordance with 38 U.S.C. § 7112.68

IV. CONCLUSION

After consideration of the parties' briefs, oral arguments, the record on appeal, and the

governing law, the Court SETS ASIDE the November 1, 2016, Board decision and REMANDS

the matter for readjudication consistent with this decision.69

67

See Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet.App. 369, 372-73 (1999) (per curiam order); see also Clark v. O'Rourke,

30 Vet.App. 92 (2018).

68

See Kay v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 529, 534 (2002).

69

The Secretary's April 30, 2018, motion for leave to file a notice of correction remains pending before the

Court. We deny that motion as moot.

12