holding that VCAA timing-notice error was nonprejudicial where following postadjudicato-ry, content-complaint VCAA notice, the veteran affirmatively indicated, through counsel, that he had no further evidence to submit; returning the claim to the RO would have resulted in a readjudication of the matter on exactly the same evidence and law previously considered by RO
How later courts described this case
- holding that VCAA timing-notice error was nonprejudicial where following postadjudicato-ry, content-complaint VCAA notice, the veteran affirmatively indicated, through counsel, that he had no further evidence to submit; returning the claim to the RO would have resulted in a readjudication of the matter on exactly the same evidence and law previously considered by RO
- noting that Court is not permitted to reverse Board's favorable findings of fact
- providing for Court to reverse or set aside only findings of fact "adverse to the claimant"
- stating that the Court is not permitted to reverse the Board's favorable findings of fact
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SCHOELEN, Judge,
concurring:
I wholeheartedly join the Court’s opinion in full except for footnote two. I do not find any significance in the nature of Mr. Medrano’s representation as it relates to the timing-of-notice error, except that the Court must apply the rule that an attorney’s actions and communications are directly attributable to his client. Overton v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 427, 438-39 (2006).