Citation Nr: 18147709 Decision Date: 11/06/18 Archive Date: 11/05/18 DOCKET NO. 15-44 373 DATE: November 6, 2018 REMAND Entitlement to the restoration of service connection for ischemic heart disease with an automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date prior to August 23, 2013 for a grant of service connection for ischemic heart disease with an automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1968 to January 1970. He performed combat service in the Republic of Vietnam. In a November 2013 rating decision VA granted entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease with an automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Thereafter, in a November 2015 rating decision VA proposed to sever entitlement to service connection for this disorder. [N.B. The November 2015 rating decision apparently was based, in part, on a doctor’s opinion finding “clear and convincing” evidence that the appellant did not have ischemic heart disease. The law is clear, however, that “clear and convincing” evidence is NOT the same as “clear and unmistakable” evidence. “Clear and convincing evidence” is an intermediate standard of proof between beyond a reasonable doubt and a fair preponderance of the evidence. Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1998). In contrast, “clear and unmistakable evidence,” is evidence that cannot be misinterpreted and misunderstood, i.e., it is undebatable. Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 310, 313-14 (1992) (en banc)).] In a February 16, 2016 rating decision VA formally severed entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease with an automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator effective May 1, 2016. The appellant was informed of his appellate rights in a February 19, 2016 letter. On February 24, 2016 VA received a claim of entitlement to service connection for ischemic cardiomyopathy which the Board construes to be a timely notice of disagreement. Since then, however, VA has yet to issue the appellant a statement of the case. A November 2015 statement of the case cannot serve as the document because that document merely addressed the proposal to sever, not the actual decision severing the benefit. Accordingly, the Board finds that further development is required. Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App 238, 240-241 (1999). Hence, this case is REMANDED for the following action: The AOJ must issue a statement of the case addressing the claims of entitlement to a restoration of service connection for ischemic heart disease with automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and entitlement to an effective date prior to August 23, 2013 for a grant of service connection for ischemic heart disease with automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator appeal. Thereafter, the Veteran must file a timely substantive appeal in order to vest the Board with jurisdiction over these claims. The Veteran is advised that the Board will   not exercise appellate jurisdiction over these claims absent a timely perfected appeal. DEREK R. BROWN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. E., Associate Counsel