(a) Evidence received prior to transfer of records to Board of Veterans' Appeals. Evidence received by the agency of original jurisdiction prior to transfer of the records to the Board of Veterans' Appeals after an appeal has been initiated (including evidence received after certification has been completed) will be referred to the appropriate rating or authorization activity for review and disposition. If the Statement of the Case and any prior Supplemental Statements of the Case were prepared before the receipt of the additional evidence, a Supplemental Statement of the Case will be furnished to the appellant and his or her representative as provided in § 19.31 of this part, unless the additional evidence received duplicates evidence previously of record which was discussed in the Statement of the Case or a prior Supplemental Statement of the Case or the additional evidence is not relevant to the issue, or issues, on appeal.
(b) Evidence received after transfer of records to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. Additional evidence received by the agency of original jurisdiction after the records have been transferred to the Board of Veterans' Appeals for appellate consideration will be forwarded to the Board if it has a bearing on the appellate issue or issues. The Board will then determine what action is required with respect to the additional evidence.
(c) The provisions of this section do 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)(1) (2016))
[57 FR 4104, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 73 FR 29879, May 22, 2008; 84 FR 178, Jan. 18, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
30
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2022 · leading case:
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (Vet. App. 1999).
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (Vet. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “See also 38 C.F.R. § 19.37 . The Court notes that the Board currently mails postremand notice to an appellant regarding the submission of “additional evidence”.”
Dingess - Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (Vet. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 19.37 (2005). To hold that section 5103(a) continues to apply after a disability rating or an effective date has been determined would essentially render sections 7105(d) and 5103A and their implementing regulations insignificant and superfluous, thus disturbing the…”
Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 119 (Vet. App. 1993).
“) A Supplemental SOC (SSOC) is required when an appellant submits additional evidence to the VARO prior to the transfer of appellant’s records to the BVA, 38 C.F.R. § 19.37 (a) (1992), and when a BVA remand of a case to the VARO results in additional evidentiary or procedural…”
Harmon Carter, Jr. v. Eric K. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 534 (Vet. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “" Oral Argument at 39:30; see also 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.37 (2013), 20.1304(a). It is further undisputed that between the date on which the Court granted the joint motion for remand on July 6, 2010, and the date of the Board decision on February 18, 2011, Mr.”
Thomas E. O'Connell v. R. James Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 89 (Vet. App. 2007).
“5 See 38 C.F.R. § 19.37 (b) (2006) (providing that “[ajdditional evidence received by the agency of original jurisdiction after the records have been transferred to the Board .”
Carter v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
“an appellant is entitled, until 90 days have expired after the Board mails to the appellant a postremand notice to the following effect, to submit, under the parameters set forth in 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.37 , 20.1304(a), without a showing of good cause, additional evidence and…”
Susy Short Bear v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 341 (Vet. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, after being advised that the law did not permit a clothing allowance for undergarments and that she could present evidence of damage to her outer clothing on appeal to the Board, Ms.”
Sims v. West, 11 Vet. App. 237 (Vet. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “However, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 19.37 (b), [additional evidence received by the [RO] after the records have been transferred to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals for appellate consideration will be forwarded to the Board if it has a bearing on the appellate issue or issues.”
Hasty v. West, 13 Vet. App. 230 (Vet. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly, the Court holds that in every case in which the Court remands to the Board a matter for adjudication or readjudication (whether or not the Court cites to this precedential order and unless the Court specifically provides to the contrary in ordering such remand), (1)…”
Eddie C. Clark v. Peter O'Rourke (Vet. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “2 He asserts, however, that 1 The language the appellant points to in Kutscherousky also discusses evidence submitted to the Board under the parameters of 38 C.F.R. § 19.37 . See 12 Vet.App. at 372 .”
09-01 775 (Board of Vet. App. 2016).
“The Board finds that this additional evidence was not relevant such that the issuance of a supplemental statement of the case was required as set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 19.37 (a). This appeal was processed using the Virtual VA (VVA) and Virtual Benefits Management System (VBMS)…”
08-21 934 (Board of Vet. App. 2016).
“Because this evidence was received by the AOJ prior to the transfer of the records to the Board, 38 C.F.R. § 19.37 (a) (2015) requires that the AOJ consider the evidence and prepare an SSOC under 38 C.”
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.