When a case is remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals, the agency of original jurisdiction will complete the additional development of the evidence or procedural development required. Following completion of the development, the case will be reviewed to determine whether the additional development, together with the evidence which was previously of record, supports the allowance of all benefits sought on appeal. If so, the appellant and his or her representative, if any, will be promptly informed. If any benefits sought on appeal remain denied following this review, the agency of original jurisdiction will issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case concerning the additional development pertaining to those issues in accordance with the provisions of § 19.31 of this part. Following the 30-day period allowed for a response to the Supplemental Statement of the Case pursuant to § 19.52(c), the case will be returned to the Board for further appellate processing unless the appeal is withdrawn or review of the response to the Supplemental Statement of the Case results in the allowance of all benefits sought on appeal. Remanded cases will not be closed for failure to respond to the Supplemental Statement of the Case.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105(d)(1) (2016))
[57 FR 4104, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 69 FR 53808, Sept. 3, 2004; 73 FR 40748, July 16, 2008; 84 FR 179, Jan. 18, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case:
Holland v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 324 (Vet. App. 1996).
Holland v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 324 (Vet. App. 1996).
· cites it 6× “The VA regulation in 38 C.F.R. § 19.38 provides as to cases remanded by the Board to an RO: When a case is remanded by the [Board], the [AOJ] will complete the additional development of the evidence or procedural development required.”
In re the Fee Agreement of Stanley, 9 Vet. App. 203 (Vet. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 19.38 : When a ease is remanded by the [Board,] the [AOJ] will complete the additional development of the evidence or procedural development required.”
Sprinkle v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
· cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 19.38 . If any benefit sought remains denied, the Regional Office must issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case concerning the additional development that informs the claimant of any material changes in, or additions to, the information previously considered by the…”
Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 119 (Vet. App. 1993).
“37 (a) (1992), and when a BVA remand of a case to the VARO results in additional evidentiary or procedural development and continuation of the denial of benefits, 38 C.F.R. § 19.38 (1992); see generally 38 C.”
West v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 329 (Vet. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “182(e) [now 38 C.F.R. § 19.38 (1994) ], a case which has been remanded to the unit which made the initial determination [ (the RO) ] is automatically returned to the Board for further processing if full relief is not awarded by the [RO] on remand.”
Hamilton v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 528 (Vet. App. 1993).
“38 C.F.R. § 19.38 (1992) (“demanded cases will not be closed for failure to respond to the [SSOC]”), see also 38 C.”
Kyhn v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 228 (Vet. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Indeed, 38 C.F.R. § 19.38 provides: When a case is remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, the agency of original jurisdiction will complete the additional development of the evidence or procedural development required.”
Arnold C. Kyhn v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 335 (Vet. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Indeed, 38 C.F.R. § 19.38 provides: When a case is remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, the agency of original jurisdiction will complete the additional development of the evidence or procedural development required.”
Godfrey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 398 (Vet. App. 1995).
“182(c), with revisions not relevant here, does now form part of 38 C.F.R. § 19.38 (1994), § 19.182(b) now forms part of 38 C.”
Archbold v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 124 (Vet. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “The fundamental procedural deficiencies that are controlling here, as discussed below, are the failure of VA to inform the veteran of his appellate rights in connection with the July 1991 RO decision which initially denied his CUE claim, to issue an SOC after he filed his July…”
George D. Murphy v. Eric K. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 510 (Vet. App. 2014).
“See 38 C.F.R. § 19.38 (2013) (providing that, after a Board remand, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) will complete any additional development and, if any benefits sought on appeal remain denied, will issue an SSOC; “[Hollowing the 30-day period allowed for a response to…”
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.