Citation Nr: 21065070
Decision Date: 10/25/21	Archive Date: 10/25/21

DOCKET NO. 19-26 320A
DATE: October 25, 2021

REMANDED

Eligibility of the direct payment of attorney fees from past-due benefits awarded based on a November 2017 rating decision (that assigned a 50 percent rating for bilateral hearing loss from October 11, 2016) is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran is the appellant in this case. He disagrees that his former attorney, R.W., is eligible to receive direct payment of fees from VA in connection with an award of an increased rating for hearing loss in a November 2017 rating decision. See NOD (January 2018). 

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2017 decision (Summary of the Case) of a VA Regional Office (RO). 

The Board notes that the Veteran also raised the issue of reasonableness of attorney fees in a January 2018. See NOD (Notice of Disagreement) (January 2018), which is the subject of a separate Board decision.

Eligibility to direct payment of attorney fees from past due benefits awarded based on a November 2017 rating decision is remanded.

The Board finds that remand is necessary to ensure compliance with the contested claims procedures.  

Because this case involves a simultaneously contested claim, certain procedural safeguards are applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 7105A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100, 19.101, 19.102, 20.500, 20.501, 20.502, 20.503, 20.504.  Specifically, 38 C.F.R. § 19.100 provides that, in a simultaneously contested claim, all interested parties are to be notified of the action taken by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) and of the right and time limit for initiating an appeal, as well as notification of the right to a hearing and representation.  Upon the filing of an NOD, all interested parties will be furnished a copy of the statement of the case (SOC). 38 C.F.R. § 19.101.  The interested parties who filed a NOD will be duly notified of the right to file, and the time limit within which to file, a Substantive Appeal and will be furnished with VA Form 9, "Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals." Id. When a substantive appeal is filed, the content 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.

In this case, it appears that the rules regarding simultaneously contested claims have not been fulfilled. Specifically, the AOJ has not issued a Statement of the Case (SOC) to any of the parties in this matter. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-41 (1999).

Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to ensure due process of lawthat is, full compliance with the contested claims procedures pursuant to 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100-02, 20.500-04, to include issuing an SOC to the parties in this matter.

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

(Continued on the next page)

 

Ensure full compliance with the contested claims procedures outlined in 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100-02, 20.500-04 to include, but not limited to, issuing an SOC to the contesting parties.

 

C.A. SKOW

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Pendleton, N.

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.