Citation Nr: 21009685
Decision Date: 02/23/21	Archive Date: 02/23/21

DOCKET NO. 16-25 572
DATE: February 23, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for bladder cancer is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from December 1957 to December 1967. 

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a September 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the May July 2016 VA Form 9, the Veteran elected a Board hearing. In April 2019, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veteran’s Law Judge. A copy of the transcript is associated with the claims file. 

This matter was previously before the Board in August 2019 in which the Board remanded the claims for additional development. In August 2020, the RO issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). In October 2020, the RO issued another SSOC after receiving additional evidence in the form of a statement in support of claim. Subsequent to the October 2020 SSOC, additional evidence in the form of a statement in support of claim was received in October 2020. The October 2020 additional evidence was not previously considered by RO. In a December 2020 letter, the Board asked the Veteran if he chose to have his claim remanded to the RO to consider the additional evidence received after the October 2020 SSOC or if he waived consideration of the additional evidence by the RO and preferred adjudication by the Board. In December 2020, the Veteran requested that his claim be remanded to the RO to consider the new evidence received after the October 2020 SSOC. Accordingly, the Board remands the Veteran’s claim for service connection for bladder cancer to the RO to consider all evidence received after the October 2020 SSOC. 

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

Readjudicate the issue on appeal taking into consideration all newly received evidence since the October 2020 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, provide an additional SSOC to the Veteran and his representative, and return the appeal to the Board for appellate review, after the Veteran and his representative have had an adequate opportunity to respond.

 

 

Cynthia M. Bruce

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	J. Agarwal, Associate 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.