38 C.F.R. § 20.200
Rule 200. Notification by agency of original jurisdiction of right to appeal
The claimant and his or her representative, if any, will be informed of appellate rights provided by 38 U.S.C. chapters 71 and 72, including the right to a personal hearing and the right to representation. The agency of original jurisdiction will provide this information in each notification of a determination of entitlement or nonentitlement to Department of Veterans Affairs benefits, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 5104, 5104B, and 5108.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 123
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (Vet. App. 1999).
Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (Vet. App. 1999). “Appellate review of a decision by an agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ), usually the RO, is initiated by the claimant’s filing a timely NOD with the AOJ and is perfected by the claimant’s filing a Substantive Appeal with the AOJ.”
Muhammad Chaudhry v. Michael Astrue, 688 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012). “See 38 C.F.R. § 20.200 . 7 . Somatization disorder is "a mental disorder characterized by presentation of a complicated medical history and of physical symptoms referring to a variety of organ systems, but without a detectable or known organic basis.”
Robinson v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “38 C.F.R. § 20.200 . ‘While special wording is not required,” the notice of disagreement must be a written communication that “can be reasonably construed as disagreement with [the RO’s decision] and a desire for appellate review.”
Rafael A. Gomez v. Anthony J. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 369 (Vet. App. 2003). “The Board concluded that the appellant was "statutorily barred from appealing the January 1996 [RO] decision" and that, therefore, the Board did "not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from [that RO] decision" (citing 38 C.F.R. § 20.200 and Roy v. Brown, 5 Vet.”
Butts v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 532 (Vet. App. 1993). “See 38 C.F.R. § 20.200 (1992) (“If the Statement of the Case [SOC] and any prior Supplemental [SOCs] addressed several issues, the Substantive Appeal must either indicate that the appeal is being perfected as to all of those issues or must specifically identify the issues…”
Thompson v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 169 (Vet. App. 1995). “§ 7105 (d)(3)) and the “Substantive Appeal” ( 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200 , 20.202-20.204 (1994)), is the last document a VA claimant files in order to perfect an appeal of an adverse RO decision to the BVA.”
Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (Vet. App. 1993). “§ 7105 (a) (West 1991); see 38 C.F.R. § 20.200 (1992) (to substantially the same effect).”
Cook v. Wilkie, 908 F.3d 813 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “" 38 C.F.R. § 20.200 . We agree with the Secretary that these authorities may help to illuminate the meaning of "appeal," but they do not resolve the instant question of statutory interpretation.”
Godfrey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 398 (Vet. App. 1995). “at 390 ; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200 , 20.202 (1994). In Bernard , the Court concluded as follows: [T]he question whether the Board in this case lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the veteran’s claim for service-connected disability compensation turns upon whether that…”
Orland R. Marsh v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 381 (Vet. App. 2005). “554, 555 (1993); 38 C.F.R. § 20.200 (2005). There are content and time requirements for the filing of an NOD.”
Mason v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 44 (Vet. App. 1995). “554, 555 (1993); 38 C.F.R. § 20.200 (1994). The BVA carries out appellate review on behalf of the Secretary.”
Rowell v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 9 (Vet. App. 1993). “3, 1992) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200 , 20.202)) within 60 days after the date of the SOC.”
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.