Citation Nr: 18160270
Decision Date: 12/26/18	Archive Date: 12/26/18

DOCKET NO. 14-40 399
DATE:	December 26, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to additional vocational rehabilitation and employment (VR&E) benefits, to include retroactive payment for Westlaw subscription services, is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
In February 2015, the Veteran signed an Individualized Employment Assistance Plan (IEAP) with the vocational goal of maintaining his current law practice.  All accommodations and services requested by the Veteran as part of the IEAP were provided to the Veteran in approximately March 2015.  Subsequently, in May 2015, the Veteran requested reimbursement through the VR&E program for his subscription to Westlaw Information Services, a monthly law publication.  
After obtaining an advisory opinion in December 2015 from the Director, VR&E Service, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) continued to deny the Veteran’s claim.  In a March 2016 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), the AOJ determined that because the Veteran’s law firm was an existing business, VR&E benefits are warranted only as reasonable accommodations.  Therefore, the AOJ found reimbursement for the Veteran’s Westlaw subscription was not warranted because the publication was not intended or approved as a reasonable accommodation.  
Since the issuance of the March 2016 SSOC, relevant provisions of the Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment Service Manual (M28R) have been revised.  Specifically, these revisions changed the definition of an “existing business” for the purposes of self-employment in a VR&E program, as well as the provisions for retroactive reimbursement of self-employment expenses.  Because these changes to the M28R occurred after the issuance of the last SSOC, in order to afford the Veteran full due process, a remand is required to allow the AOJ to consider the Veteran’s claim in the first instance under these revised provisions.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
Readjudicate the Veteran’s claim based on the entirety of the evidence, taking into consideration the February 2017 revisions to pertinent provisions of the M28R.  If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the appellant's satisfaction, he and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case.  An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response.   
 
MICHAEL A PAPPAS
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Christopher Murray, Counsel