Citation Nr: 21073355 Decision Date: 12/08/21 Archive Date: 12/08/21 DOCKET NO. 18-08 082 DATE: December 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to additional Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pension benefits, for accrued benefits purposes, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from November 1945 to April 1947. His decorations included the American Theatre World War II Victory Medal. Unfortunately, he died in September 2016. The parties to the appeal are the Veteran's daughter, as well as his granddaughter. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2017 determination issued by a VA Regional Office. In February 2021, the Board remanded the case to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. Entitlement to additional VA pension benefits for accrued benefits purposes is remanded. The appellants contend that they are entitled to any accrued benefits due to the Veteran as they are owed $42,900.00 and $31,200.00, respectively, for home health care they provided the Veteran prior to his death. This case involves a simultaneously contested claim, to which the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 7105A are applicable. Cases involving simultaneously contested claims are also subject to special procedural regulations. See 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 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 a notice of disagreement, all interested parties will be furnished a copy of the statement of the case (SOC). 38 C.F.R. § 19.101. 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 February 2021, the Board remanded the issue currently on appeal to the AOJ in order to ensure compliance with contested claims procedures. However, there has not been full compliance with those procedures. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Specifically, while the record reflects that the AOJ provided D.H. with a copy of the December 2017 SOC, the AOJ did not furnish D.H. with the contents of the February 2018 substantive appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 19.102. A remand is necessary in order to ensure full compliance. The record also reflects that, following the Board's remand, the AOJ did not issue a supplemental SOC (SSOC). While the February 2021 remand did not specifically instruct the AOJ to issue a SSOC, 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 provides that the AOJ will issue a SSOC if, pursuant to a Board remand, the AOJ cures a procedural defect unless: (1) the only purpose of the remand is to assemble records previously considered by the AOJ and properly discussed in a prior SOC or SSOC; or (2) the Board specifies in the remand that a SSOC is not required. In this case, the purpose of the February 2021 Board remand was not to assemble records previously considered by the AOJ and properly discussed in a prior SOC or SSOC, and the remand did not otherwise indicate that a SSOC was not required. Accordingly, a remand is necessary in order for the AOJ to issue a SSOC. This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ensure full compliance with the contested claims procedures outlined in 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100-02 and 20.500-04. Specifically, ensure that D.H. is furnished with the content of the February 2018 substantive appeal. 2. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraph, the issue on appeal should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any benefit sought remains denied, the appellants and T.H.'s representative should be issued a SSOC. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Ragheb, Counsel 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.