38 C.F.R. § 19.31

Supplemental statement of the case

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Purpose and limitations. A “Supplemental Statement of the Case,” so identified, is a document prepared by the agency of original jurisdiction to inform the appellant of any material changes in, or additions to, the information included in the Statement of the Case or any prior Supplemental Statement of the Case. The information furnished with the Supplemental Statement of the Case shall include a statement describing the available review options if the appellant elects review of the issue or issues on appeal in the modernized system. In no case will a Supplemental Statement of the Case be used to announce decisions by the agency of original jurisdiction on issues not previously addressed in the Statement of the Case, or to respond to a notice of disagreement on newly appealed issues that were not addressed in the Statement of the Case. The agency of original jurisdiction will respond to notices of disagreement on newly appealed issues not addressed in the Statement of the Case using the procedures in §§ 19.29 and 19.30 of this part (relating to statements of the case).

(b) When furnished. The agency of original jurisdiction will furnish the appellant and his or her representative, if any, a Supplemental Statement of the Case if:

(1) The agency of original jurisdiction receives additional pertinent evidence after a Statement of the Case or the most recent Supplemental Statement of the Case has been issued and before the appeal is certified to the Board of Veterans' Appeals and the appellate record is transferred to the Board;

(2) A material defect in the Statement of the Case or a prior Supplemental statement of the Case is discovered; or

(3) For any other reason the Statement of the Case or a prior Supplemental Statement of the Case is inadequate.

(c) Pursuant to remand from the Board. The agency of original jurisdiction will issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case if, pursuant to a remand by the Board, it develops the evidence or cures a procedural defect, unless:

(1) The only purpose of the remand is to assemble records previously considered by the agency of original jurisdiction and properly discussed in a prior Statement of the Case or Supplemental Statement of the Case; or

(2) The Board specifies in the remand that a Supplemental Statement of the Case is not required.

(d) Exception. Paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply in proceedings before the General Counsel conducted under part 14 of this chapter to cancel accreditation or to review fee agreements and expenses for reasonableness.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5902, 5903, 5904; 38 U.S.C. 7105(d) (2016)) [67 FR 3104, Jan. 23, 2002, as amended at 73 FR 29879, May 22, 2008; 84 FR 178, Jan. 18, 2019]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 61 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Pauline Prickett v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 370 (Vet. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pauline Prickett v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 370 (Vet. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “Any decision resulting from such development or review action is issued in an SSOC pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 , which is designed to "inform the appellant of any material changes in, or additions to, the information included in the [SOC] or to any prior [SSOC].”

Alfonso Medrano v. R. James Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 165 (Vet. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “The Court finds footnote two in Prickett instructive.”

Sprinkle v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 6× “38 C.F.R. §§ 19.31 (b), 19.37(a). Congress created a narrow exception to this first- instance consideration of evidence by the Regional Office, providing that “when, in the judgment of the Board, expert medical opinion .”

Mayfield v. Nicholson, 499 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “Finally, we reject Mayfield’s assertion that the plain language of 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 (a) precludes a SSOC from serving as a readjudication decision.”

Sutton v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 553 (Vet. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “; see also 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 (1995) (requiring SSOC to be furnished to an appellant “when additional pertinent evidence is received after [an SOC] .”

Lizzie K. Mayfield v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 537 (Vet. App. 2006). “See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.31 (SSOC “will be furnished,” inter alia, when “additional pertinent evidence is received after an [SOC] or the most recent [SSOC] has been issued” or “for any other reason the [SOC] or a prior [SSOC] is inadequate”), 19.”

Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 119 (Vet. App. 1993). “38 (1992); see generally 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 (1992); “a period of 60 days .”

Stanley A. Hamilton & Michael J. Hermann, Claimants-Appellants v. Jesse Brown, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 39 F.3d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “See 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 . The SSOC is essentially an update of the Agency’s position in light of the additional development.”

Godfrey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 398 (Vet. App. 1995). “182(b) now forms part of 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 (1994), and § 19.182(a) was superseded by 57 Fed.”

Disabled Am. Vets. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 327 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 19.31 Supplemental statement of the case.”

Sims v. Shinseki, 578 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 5× “Before the Board, Sims argued that the RO’s issuance of an SSOC in July 2004 was improper, because under 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 (a) the request to reopen and the claim of service connection were separate “issues.”

Wilson v. Mansfield, 506 F.3d 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “38 C.F.R. §§ 19.31 (c), 19.38. Within this detailed procedural scheme, section 5103(a) serves to facilitate the claim process by ensuring “that the claimant be given the required information prior to the VA’s decision on the claim and in a form that enables the claimant to…”

Show all 61 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.