Citation Nr: 21039729 Decision Date: 07/01/21 Archive Date: 07/01/21 DOCKET NO. 13-18 658 DATE: July 1, 2021 ORDER The appeal for higher ratings for left ulnar nerve paralysis and for left upper arm/shoulder scarring is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT On June 25, 2021 the Board was notified of the Veteran's unfortunate death earlier in June 2021. CONCLUSION OF LAW Because of his death, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this appeal at this time. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1983 to June 1996. This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) is from an August 2009 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In March 2016, in support of these claims, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) of the Board. A transcript of the hearing is of record. However, during the pendency of this appeal, that presiding VLJ retired, so the Veteran was notified in a May 2021 letter that he could have another hearing before a different VLJ who, in turn, would decide the appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.207. The Veteran did not respond. Meanwhile, in August 2017 and December 2020, the Board had remanded these claims back to the RO (Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ)) for further development and consideration including to obtain all outstanding treatment records relevant to these claims and to have the Veteran reexamined to reassess the severity of these service-connected disabilities, which, in turn, would assist the Board is determining whether higher ratings were warranted for them. Those remand instructions since have been completed, as directed. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding that a remand by the Board confers upon the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand instructions); but see also D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008) (holding that only "substantial" rather than strict or exact compliance with the Board's remand directives is required under Stegall); accord Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999). Unfortunately, however, the Veteran died in June 2021, during the pendency of this appeal. As a matter of law, appellants' claims do not survive their deaths. Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1243-44 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Smith v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 330, 333-34 (1997); Landicho v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 42, 47 (1994). This appeal on the merits has become moot by virtue of the Veteran's death and must be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302. In reaching this determination, the Board intimates no opinion as to the merits of this appeal or to any derivative claim brought by a survivor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1106. The Board's dismissal of this appeal does not affect the right of an eligible person to file a request to be substituted as the appellant for purposes of processing these claims to completion. Such request must be filed not later than one year after the date of the appellant's death. 38 U.S.C. § 5121A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010(b). A person eligible for substitution includes "a living person who would be eligible to receive accrued benefits due to the claimant under section 5121(a) of this title ...." 38 U.S.C. § 5121A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010(a). An eligible party seeking substitution in an appeal that has been dismissed by the Board due to the death of the claimant should file a request for substitution with the VA office from which the claims originated. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010(b). KEITH W. ALLEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Pak 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.