Citation Nr: A25035498 Decision Date: 04/17/25 Archive Date: 04/17/25 DOCKET NO. 240724-460055 DATE: April 17, 2025 ORDER Service connection for right ankle degenerative arthritis, claimed as ankle injury, is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This appeal was docketed on the direct review docket in August 2024 and on the hearing docket in September 2024. 2. The issue of entitlement to service connection for right ankle disability is appropriately pending adjudication under another AMA appeal stream in connection with the Veteran's August 2024 VA Form 10182. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for dismissal of the appeal for entitlement to service connection for right ankle disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran has active service from September 1977 to February 1985. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Historically, in September 2022 the Veteran submitted a fully developed claim seeking service connection, in pertinent part, for ankle injury. The claim was denied in a November 2022 rating decision. A request for Higher Level Review was submitted in April 2023. In a July 2023 rating decision, the AOJ noted that they had identified duty to assist errors when reviewing the claim. Consequently, the appeal was shifted out of Higher Level Review and into the supplemental claim lane. No final action was taken at this time; rather, it was indicated that development would be undertaken. In July 2024 a final decision was rendered, in pertinent part, on the right ankle. The claim was denied. In July 2024, the Veteran filed a VA Form 10182, appealing a July 2024 rating decision denying service connection for bilateral ankles, specifying the right ankle only. The Veteran checked the box requesting assignment to the Board's hearing docket (07/24/2024 VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement). (The Veteran actually identified the July 2023 rating decision but, as noted above, no final adverse action was undertaken at that time; only the July 2024 rating decision was eligible for appeal.) VA assigned the claim to the direct review docket and sent the Veteran notice to that effect in August 2024 (08/07/2024 BVA Docketing Letter). The Veteran then submitted a second Form 10182 in August 2024, appealing claims of bilateral ankles and bradycardia on appeal from a July 2024 rating decision, again requesting the hearing docket. In a September 2024 letter, the Veteran's requested docket request was approved, and the appeal was placed on the Hearing docket (08/26/2024 VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement; 09/05/2024 BVA Docketing Letter). Given the history detailed above, the Board finds the Veteran's right ankle appeal was erroneously assigned to the direct review docket in August 2024. The Board finds the hearing docket is the appropriate docket for the right ankle claim. It is consistent with the request of the Veteran as indicated on both Notices of Disagreement filed as to this issue. Accordingly, the Board finds the matter in this appeal stream is duplicative and must be dismissed. It is a well-established judicial precedent that when there is no case or controversy, or when a once live case or controversy becomes moot, the Board lacks jurisdiction. See Bond v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 376, 377 (1992); Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 12, 15 (1990). There is no benefit to the Veteran in maintaining both appeal streams concerning the same claim of entitlement to service connection for right ankle disability. Both appeal streams represent the same claim. (Continued on the next page) ? As the Veteran's appeal was erroneously docketed to the direct review docket and will be adjudicated in its place on the hearing docket, there remains no error of fact or law for the Board to address, and the appeal must be dismissed. The Board wishes to make clear that this decision has no negative implications on the appeal pending on the hearing docket. This decision dismisses the appeal stream assigned to the direct review docket, in error and contrary to the indication of the Veteran on his VA Form 10182. Eric S. Leboff Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Myers, Pamella 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.