Citation Nr: 23039643 Decision Date: 07/19/23 Archive Date: 07/19/23 DOCKET NO. 19-31 589A DATE: July 19, 2023 ORDER New and material evidence having been received, the previously denied claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is reopened. REMANDED The claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition is remanded. The claim for service connection for a right hip condition is remanded. The claim for service connection for a left hip condition is remanded. The claim for service connection for a left-hand condition is remanded. The claim for service connection for a right-hand condition is remanded. The claim for service connection for a right knee condition is remanded. The claim for service connection for a left knee condition is remanded. The claim for service connection for sinus condition is remanded. The claim for service connection for a low back condition is remanded. FINDING OF FACT New and material evidence has been submitted that provides a reasonably possibility of substantiating the Veteran's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for reopening the previously denied claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from September 1980 to July 1983. In connection with this appeal, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in April 2022. A transcript of the hearing is of record. This matter comes before the Board from an October 2018 legacy rating decision that denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, a bilateral hip condition, a bilateral hand condition, a bilateral knee condition, a sinus condition, and a low back condition. In October 2019, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182, requesting that her appeal be processed under the Veterans Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). However, the rating decision on appeal was part of the legacy system, which requires that a statement of the case (SOC) be issued after a notice of disagreement. As discussed further in the remand section below, a SOC was not issued. New and Material Evidence Generally, a final decision issued by the agency of original jurisdiction may not thereafter be reopened and allowed, and a claim based on the same factual basis may not be considered. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c), (d)(3). However, if new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim that has been disallowed, VA shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5108. Here, as stated above, the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder was initially denied in April 2009, and again in December 2009. June 2016 and October 2018 rating decisions found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the claim and the prior denials were continued. The pertinent evidence received since the previous denials include the Veteran's testimony from the April 2022 Board hearing about her acquired psychiatric disorder, including symptoms, onset, and treatment, which are unestablished facts necessary to substantiate the claim. Thus, as this evidence was not previously reviewed by the adjudicators, and because it is presumed credible for the purpose of opening the claim, it constitutes both new and material evidence. As new and material evidence has been received, the claim for the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, is reopened. REASONS FOR REMAND As stated above, in October 2018, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued a rating decision, denying service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, bilateral hip condition, bilateral hand condition, bilateral knee condition, sinus condition and low back condition. In October 2019, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182 stating that she wished to appeal the denials of all issues in the October 2018 rating decision. VA processed the Veteran's appeal in the AMA system; however, it should have been processed in the legacy system. Under the legacy system, the agency of original jurisdiction must issue a SOC in response to a timely filed notice of disagreement before the Veteran can (if she so chooses) appeal the case to the Board. In this case, a SOC was never issued. Therefore, the Board is required to remand the Veteran's claims for an issuance of an SOC. See Manlicon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). Once the SOC has been issued, the Veteran may formally appeal those issues to the Board if she wishes. The Veteran is informed that in order to perfect an appeal on these issues, she must timely (within 60 days) file a substantive appeal following the issuance of the SOC. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Furnish the Veteran a SOC for the issues of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, bilateral knee condition, bilateral hand condition, bilateral hip condition, sinus condition, and low back condition. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Gadson, Elizabeth A. 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.