Citation Nr: 22013704
Decision Date: 03/10/22	Archive Date: 03/10/22

DOCKET NO. 15-19 185
DATE: March 10, 2022

ORDER

The appeal for entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for Parkinson's disease from May 18, 2001, through February 8, 2002, is dismissed.

The appeal for entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for tremors, muscle rigidity, and stiffness of the right upper extremity, prior to February 8, 2002, and in excess of 50 percent as of July 24, 2013, is dismissed.

The appeal for entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for tremors, muscle rigidity, and stiffness of the left upper extremity, from February 8, 2002, is dismissed.

The appeal for entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for tremors of the right lower extremity as of February 8, 2002, is dismissed.

The appeal for entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for tremors of the left lower extremity as of February 8, 2002, is dismissed.

The appeal for entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for sleep disturbance prior to June 15, 2011, and in excess of 30 percent as of July 24, 2013, is dismissed.

The appeal for entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for stooped posture balance impairment, and bradykinesia as of June 15, 2011, is dismissed.

The appeal for entitlement to a compensable rating for loss of automatic movements to the right side of the face is dismissed.

The appeal for entitlement to a compensable rating for loss of automatic movements to the left side of the face is dismissed.

The appeal for entitlement to a compensable rating for speech impairment is dismissed.

The appeal for entitlement to a compensable rating for constipation is dismissed.

The appeal for entitlement to a compensable rating for difficulty swallowing is dismissed.

FINDING OF FACT

On February 14, 2022, prior to promulgation of a decision on the appeals, the Board was notified that the appellant died in February 2022.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

Due to the death of the appellant, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the appeals at this time.  38 U.S.C. § 7104(a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran had active service from August 1967 to August 1970.

These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of June 2011 and September 2013 rating decisions by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

Unfortunately, the appellant died during the pendency of the issues on appeal.  As a matter of law, appellants' claims do not survive their deaths.  Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Smith v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 330 (1997); Landicho v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 42 (1994).  Board adjudication of the issues on appeal on the merits has become moot by virtue of the death of the appellant and must be 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 the issues on appeal or to any derivative claim brought by a survivor of the Veteran.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1106.

The Board's dismissal of the issues on appeal does not affect the right of an eligible person to file a request to be substituted as the appellant for purposes of processing the claims to completion.  Any 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 38 U.S.C. § 5121.  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 claim originated.  38 C.F.R. § 3.1010(b).

 

 

Harvey P. Roberts

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	B. G. LeMoine, 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.