Citation Nr: 22010857 Decision Date: 02/24/22 Archive Date: 02/24/22 DOCKET NO. 14-35 181 DATE: February 24, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral ganglion cysts of the wrists is REMANDED. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably in the United States Army from October 1977 to February 1978, and from January 1990 to June 1991. Upon review of the record, the Board concludes that further procedural development is necessary. Although the Board sincerely regrets this delay and is appreciative of the Veteran's service to his country, a remand is necessary to ensure VA provides the Veteran with appropriate procedure for his claims prior to final adjudication. In April 2018, March 2021, and August 2021, the Board addressed the two service-connection claims listed on the title page. On all three occasions, the Board remanded the claims to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. In addition to the issue remanded herein, the Board observes that the August 2021 Remand also included the issue of entitlement to service connection for a left wrist disability. Recently, the AOJ issued a January 2022 rating decision that granted service connection for left wrist arthritis with assignment of a 10 percent disability evaluation effective April 2, 2021. This action constitutes a full grant of the benefit sought with respect to this issue. Accordingly, the issue of entitlement to service connection for a left wrist disability is not before the Board. Further, the record does not show that the Veteran has disagreed with either the effective date or disability evaluation assigned. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral ganglion cysts of the wrists is remanded. At this time, the Board observes that additional pertinent medical records have been associated with the Veteran's electronic claims folder since the AOJ issued the most recent Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) on December 16, 2021. Since these medical records were added to the Veteran's claims file after issuance of the SSOCs, and it clear that the AOJ did not review these medical records, a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) must be furnished to the Veteran and his attorney. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.31. If the Board were to consider this evidence in the first instance, this potentially could be prejudicial because the Veteran, in effect, would "lose one bite of the apple," meaning the benefit of one level of judicial review. Cf., Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (1993). Thus, the Board concludes that the AOJ should have the opportunity to review these additional medical records and issue an additional SSOC. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.37 (b). The Board may not consider additional pertinent evidence not previously reviewed by the AOJ, unless a waiver of initial AOJ review is obtained from the Veteran. Disabled American Veterans, et. al. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 327 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304 (c). The Veteran has not submitted a waiver of AOJ consideration of the new evidence received since issuance of the December 2021 SSOC, and the AOJ has not issued an SSOC with consideration of the newly received evidence. On remand, the agency of original jurisdiction should issue a SSOC that considers all the evidence received since the December 2021 SSOC. In reaching this conclusion, the Board observes that the Veteran filed his substantive appeal on September 23, 2014. For all substantive appeals received on or after February 2, 2013, if, either at the time or after the AOJ receives a substantive appeal, the claimant or the claimant's representative submits evidence to either the AOJ or the Board for consideration in connection with the issues on appeal, such evidence shall be subject to initial review by the Board unless the claimant or the claimant's representative requests in writing that the AOJ initially review such evidence. See Section 501 of the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012, Public Law (PL) 112-154 (amending 38 U.S.C. § 7105 by adding new paragraph (e)). However, as this evidence does not appear to have been submitted by either the Veteran or his attorney, the claims must be remanded for the AOJ for readjudication with consideration of the additional medical evidence, which pertains to both of the Veteran's service-connection claims listed on the title page. Consequently, the matters are REMANDED to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for the following action: 1. Readjudicate the issues on appeal in light of all the additional evidence added to the record since the December 2021 SSOC. 2. If the benefits sought on appeal are denied, the Veteran and his attorney should be provided a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board RLBJ, 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.