holding that, although failing to provide notice or providing defective notice of the evidence necessary to substantiate a claim would have a naturally prejudicial effect, other notice errors generally would not have such an effect
How later courts described this case
- holding that, although failing to provide notice or providing defective notice of the evidence necessary to substantiate a claim would have a naturally prejudicial effect, other notice errors generally would not have such an effect
- noting that a lack of notice regarding "a key element needed to substantiate the claim" deprives the claimant of a meaningful opportunity to participate in the processing of her claim
- "[P]rejudice is not assessed in a vacuum; rather it is based on the facts and circumstances presented in the entire record."
- “An increased-rating claim is the same as a claim for increased benefits and the terms [can be] used interchangeably ....”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HAGEL, Judge,
concurring in the result:
Although I agree with the majority’s opinion in this appeal, I feel compelled to reiterate my disagreement with the majority’s conclusions in Vazquez-Flores I that an appellant’s postadjudicatory participation in the VA appellate process can alone render a section 5103(a) notice error nonprejudicial. Because the Federal Circuit did not address this issue in Vazquez-Flores II, 580 F.3d 1270 (Fed.Cir.2009), the Court’s majority opinion as to these issues stands undisturbed. Therefore, for the reasons stated in my concurrence in Vazquez-Flores I, see 22 Vet.App. 37, 51-57 (2008), I continue to respectfully disagree with the majority’s apparent minimization of the duty to notify.