Citation Nr: 18144358 Decision Date: 10/24/18 Archive Date: 10/24/18 DOCKET NO. 13-31 114A DATE: October 24, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to attorney fees from benefits resulting from a December 2011 rating decision is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1968 to December 1970. The Veteran died in January 2009. The Veteran’s surviving spouse was properly substituted as the appellant in the Veteran’s claim for service connection for ischemic heart disease, which was granted in a December 2011 rating decision. The appellant is the appellant’s former attorney representative. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2012 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board notes that contested claims procedures are applicable to this appeal as the attorney fee dispute relates to benefits that have already been disbursed to the Veteran’s surviving spouse. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105A; 38 C.F.R. § 20.3(p). Thus, both the appellant and the Veteran’s surviving spouse have a substantial interest in the outcome of this appeal. Special procedural regulations are applicable to such appeals. All interested parties are to be specifically notified of the action taken by the AOJ in a simultaneously contested claim, and of the right and time limit for initiating appeal, as well as both hearing and representation rights. 38 C.F.R. § 19.100. After a notice of disagreement has been filed in a simultaneously contested claim, all interested parties are to be furnished with a copy of a statement of the case. 38 C.F.R. § 19.101. When a substantive appeal is filed in a simultaneously contested claim, the content of the substantive appeal will be furnished to the other contesting parties to the extent that it contains information which could directly affect the payment or potential payment of the benefit which is the subject of the contested claim. 38 C.F.R. § 19.102. A party to a simultaneously contested claim has a 30-day answer period to respond to the substantive appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.502. Review of the record found that the requirements for a contested claim have not been fully complied with in this appeal. The appellant has asserted that he is entitled to attorney fees for past due benefits granted in the December 2011 rating decision. In the December 2011 rating decision, the RO granted entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease with a 100 percent rating effective October 6, 2005, service connection for the cause of death, special monthly compensation (SMC) based on housebound criteria and SMC based on aid and attendance criteria. The Veteran’s claim for service connection for congestive heart failure was initially denied in an August 2006 rating decision. The Veteran appealed the denial in a February 2007 notice of disagreement. Following the Veteran’s death in January 2009, his surviving spouse was substituted in the claim. The appellant attorney and the Veteran’s surviving spouse signed a VA Form 21-22, Appointment of Individual as Claimant’s Representative and attorney fee agreement in December 2010. In an April 2012 administrative decision, the RO determined that the appellant attorney was not entitled to attorney fees $15,313.20 (20 percent of past due benefits) that held been withheld following the December 2011 rating decision. The appellant attorney filed a notice of disagreement with the decision in May 2012. The Veteran’s surviving spouse was not provided with a copy of the notice of disagreement. In November 2013, the RO issued a statement of the case (SOC) which again denied attorney fees based on the December 2011 rating decision. The record indicates that the Veteran’s surviving spouse has not been provided with a copy of the SOC. In November 2013, the appellant attorney filed a substantive appeal. In November 2016, the RO issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), which again denied attorney fees to the appellant attorney. The Veteran’s surviving spouse has not been provided with a copy of the substantive appeal or SSOC. The Veteran’s surviving spouse was provided with a copy of the letter notifying her the case had been transferred to the Board, but it did not specify what issue was before the Board. As the Veteran’s surviving spouse did not receive copies of the SOC, SSOC or notice of the substantive appeal, the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 19.101 and 19.102 have not been met with respect to this simultaneously contested claim, and remand for corrective action is required. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Ensure full compliance with the contested claims procedures outlined in 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100-02, 20.500-04. Specifically, provide the Veteran’s surviving spouse with copies of the November 2013 SOC and November 2016 SSOC and the content of the appellant’s substantive appeal and notice of the 30-day period for filing a response to the substantive appeal (as provided by 38 C.F.R. § 20.502). If she responds, notice of the responses should be provided to the appellant. M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Marenna, Counsel