’WPC  
      _r    į«"!0J6żf
Nßy]ßćčtņŪĄdČØr¤p'ü8Cd¤p)UcGf¤H$ū5”#Ō/ŹF6ÕH“tĖół ±Ą²³ĪĪŠóÜĶjÉrĢh÷ų÷'¦[ųŗń“NØÓvø*ćĪÓŹj£¦SN:­@Gć\B«g~”]¬w­§ovSlįž"z“Ļųgn¶YÄ%§ĆSdCåÅ¢ņÉ#/uLĻa]Ś9=ļB8:ŗZY8“+aTČĶEöM¶ mōv!ä4ėežtŲ\ųz)ęEe5„B·÷'kŁyr5s4r(ņķ”ü’šei%`ŅfÆę÷Ę9iµż£nā]csæ`J*mĮź”éRŠĘ]ødDźąéųżRd4V¢Ļ­YPµŅ7½LæŻKŚ2y¶x!Gš­[āP)+"ŅaL°]å°\ŹłJīM¾čūķ¬tĘ¦W„g'Ē ŻĖkC×}tZ£’ń'Įp8ÅÄ’3æ'ŻöŅ4ØĢĄ$`®°dnŅD³"³AÜ Ż3įT¢¤ŹĆ]īké®ēćģ*ŗsĻl f           0   ~     0   x     0   k     0   k   õ  0      `	  0   ~   ś	  0   Ń   x
  0   ä   I  0   ¦   -  0   ÷   Ó  0   
  Ź  0     Ō  0   1  ņ  0   C  #  0   V  f  0   Ļ   ¼  0   ¤     0   ¤   /  0   Ć   Ó  0   ¼     0   »   R  0   Ł     0   £   ę  0   £      U   .   ,  	%      Z   U  >   `  0   z     0   ä     	      ü  0   =     0   F   J  0   P     	1      ą  0   Ł   u  	1     N  0   ¾   U  #        0      !   E      «!  w   @   ­!     j	  ķ!  n   X  W+  0   r   Æ,  	B      !-  	1   m   >-  0      «-        «.     i  ·.         2   !   Š   02   U   .    3   !      .3   !      ¾3   !      N4   !      Ž4   !     n5   !   p  ~6  "   ]  ī;  	)      K?      _  [?         ŗ@  4      ŗ@     ~  Ī@   	      LC  0  D   RC     ę  C   U   H   |F     ę  ÄF   U   N   ŖI     ¦  ųI   U   .   Q   U   >   ĢQ       
R   U   H   U   	      ęU     4  ģU            ģU     ¤   Y             Y     =  Ä[            Ä[            Ä[     ¦  b            b            b            b            b            b            b     j	  §i     ę  s   U   N   ÷u   	      Ev            Ev            Ev       Kv     *  Ōy     ¤  ž|     A  ¢     ¦  ć      V       &          ’’8 D o c u m e n t [ 8 ]   D o c u m e n t   S t y l e   ą0    . .  ąą8    `	. . `	 ąĢ     V                ’’8 D o c u m e n t [ 4 ]   D o c u m e n t   S t y l e   ą    . .  ąņņņņ.óóóó    V                 ’’8 D o c u m e n t [ 6 ]   D o c u m e n t   S t y l e   ą8    . .  ąĢ     V                 ’’8 D o c u m e n t [ 5 ]   D o c u m e n t   S t y l e   ą0    . .  ąĢ     V       /         ’’8 D o c u m e n t [ 2 ]   D o c u m e n t   S t y l e   ĢņņŌ2     ŌA.Ō3
   
 ŌņņŌ
     ŌŌ     ŌĢ óóóó    V       &          ’’8 D o c u m e n t [ 7 ]   D o c u m e n t   S t y l e   ą0    . .  ąą0    `	. . `	 ąĢ     z       U          ’’: R i g h t   P a r [ 1 ]   R i g h t - A l i g n e d   P a r a g r a p h   N u m b e r s   ąŠ    . .   ąŌ2       ŌI.Ō3
   
 Ōą     °. . ° ąą0    . .  ąĢ     z       h          ’’: R i g h t   P a r [ 2 ]   R i g h t - A l i g n e d   P a r a g r a p h   N u m b e r s   ą    . .  ąąŠ    `	. . ų ąŌ2      ŌA.Ō3
   
 Ōą     . .  ąą0    `	. . `	 ąĢ     V       ?         ’’8 D o c u m e n t [ 3 ]   D o c u m e n t   S t y l e   Ģą    . .  ąņņŌ2     Ō1.Ō3
   
 ŌŌ
     ŌŌ     Ō óó    z       {          ’’: R i g h t   P a r [ 3 ]   R i g h t - A l i g n e d   P a r a g r a p h   N u m b e r s   ą    . .  ąą    `	. . `	 ąąŠ    ø. . P
 ąŌ2      Ō1.Ō3
   
 Ōą     `	. . `	 ąą0    ø. . ø ąĢ     z                 ’’: R i g h t   P a r [ 4 ]   R i g h t - A l i g n e d   P a r a g r a p h   N u m b e r s   ą    . .  ąą    `	. . `	 ąą    ø. . ø ąąŠ    . . Ø ąŌ2      Ōa.Ō3
   
 Ōą     ø. . ø ąą0    . .  ąĢ     z       ¢          ’’: R i g h t   P a r [ 5 ]   R i g h t - A l i g n e d   P a r a g r a p h   N u m b e r s   ą    . .  ąą    `	. . `	 ąą    ø. . ø ąą    . .  ąąŠ    h. .  ąŌ2      Ō(1)Ō3
   
 Ōą     . .  ąą0    h. . h ąĢ     z       µ          ’’: R i g h t   P a r [ 6 ]   R i g h t - A l i g n e d   P a r a g r a p h   N u m b e r s   ą    . .  ąą    `	. . `	 ąą    ø. . ø ąą    . .  ąą    h. . h ąąŠ    Ą. . ą ąŌ2      Ō(a)Ō3
   
 Ōą     h. . h ąą0    Ą. . Ą ąĢ     z       Ē          ’’: R i g h t   P a r [ 7 ]   R i g h t - A l i g n e d   P a r a g r a p h   N u m b e r s   ą    . .  ąą    `	. . `	 ąą    ø. . ø ąą    . .  ąą    h. . h ąą    Ą. . Ą ąąŠ    . . ° ąŌ2      Ōi)Ō3
   
 Ōą     Ą. . Ą ąą0    . .  ąĢ     z       Ś          ’’: R i g h t   P a r [ 8 ]   R i g h t - A l i g n e d   P a r a g r a p h   N u m b e r s   ą    . .  ąą    `	. . `	 ąą    ø. . ø ąą    . .  ąą    h. . h ąą    Ą. . Ą ąą    . .  ąąŠ    p. .  ąŌ2      Ōa)Ō3
   
 Ōą     . .  ąą0    p. . p ąĢ     V       X         ’’8 D o c u m e n t [ 1 ]   D o c u m e n t   S t y l e   ĢŌ     Ōą@    ģ. . ^ ąņņņņŌ
      ŌŌ2      ŌI.Ō3
   
 ŌŌ    ŌŌ     ŌŌ      ŌĢ óóóó    l       2         ’’: T e c h n i c a l [ 5 ]   T e c h n i c a l   D o c u m e n t   S t y l e   ą    . .  ąņņŌ2     Ō(1)Ō3
   
 Ō.óó    l       2         ’’: T e c h n i c a l [ 6 ]   T e c h n i c a l   D o c u m e n t   S t y l e   ą    . .  ąņņŌ2     Ō(a)Ō3
   
 Ō.óó    l       /   %      ’’: T e c h n i c a l [ 2 ]   T e c h n i c a l   D o c u m e n t   S t y l e   ĢņņŌ2     ŌA.Ō3
   
 ŌņņŌ
     ŌŌ     ŌóóĢ ą    . .  ąóó    l       ,   !      ’’: T e c h n i c a l [ 3 ]   T e c h n i c a l   D o c u m e n t   S t y l e   ĢņņŌ2     Ō1.Ō3
   
 ŌŌ
     ŌŌ     Ō ą    . .  ąóó    l      (   !      ’’: T e c h n i c a l [ 4 ]   T e c h n i c a l   D o c u m e n t   S t y l e   ņņŌ2     Ōa.Ō3
   
 ŌŌ
     ŌŌ     Ō ą    . .  ąóó    l       :   0      ’’: T e c h n i c a l [ 1 ]   T e c h n i c a l   D o c u m e n t   S t y l e   ĢņņņņŌ
      ŌŌ2      ŌI.Ō3
   
 ŌŌ    ŌŌ     ŌŌ      ŌĢ óóą    . .  ąóó    l       1         ’’: T e c h n i c a l [ 7 ]   T e c h n i c a l   D o c u m e n t   S t y l e   ą    . .  ąņņŌ2     Ōi)Ō3
   
 Ō.óó    l       1         ’’: T e c h n i c a l [ 8 ]   T e c h n i c a l   D o c u m e n t   S t y l e   ą    . .  ąņņŌ2     Ōa)Ō3
   
 Ō.óó< ž6X  9   ` (   C o u r i e r          4 X) ō\	  	   `   & T m s R m n       L e g a l   P r o       R       &          ’’8 B i b l i o g r p h y   B i b l i o g r a p h y   ą0    . .  ąą     °. . ° ąĢĢ    f          p        ’’2 D o c   I n i t   I n i t i a l i z e   D o c u m e n t   S t y l e   Ó     ÓĒÓS 	"   	             I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)                 S ÓŲ                     Ų    !           (                  ’’$       Ģą0
    
 ąą 
    
 ą    (                  ’’$       ą0
    
 ąą0
    
 ąą 
    
 ą    (       (           ’’$       ą0
    
 ąą0
    
 ąą0
    
 ąą 
    
 ą   	       ’’  A _ e k q w    D o c u m e n t   D o c u m e n t   S t y l e   I .   1 .   A .   a .   ( 1 )   ( a )   i )   a )         j       o            ’’4 T e c h   I n i t   I n i t i a l i z e   T e c h n i c a l   S t y l e   ÓS 	$                      1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1                 ž S ÓŲ                     Ų          ’’        C u y    ± É å T e c h n i c a l   T e c h n i c a l   D o c u m e n t   S t y l e   1   1 . 1   1 . 1 . 1   1 . 1 . 1 . 1   1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1   1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1   1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1   1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1         x   F               ” 2 P l e a d i n g   H e a d e r   f o r   n u m b e r e d   p l e a d i n g   p a p e r   Ó    Č    ÓŃ     ° ŃŃ   č° ŃÖ 1       ’’ ² Ka:; Ö H P   L a s e r J e t   5 / 5 M   -   E n h a n c e d                     HPBXLA       Č Č Č Č Č Č Č Č 0                                                                                                                                                                   (   e               2/ä$ Ø   Ø   Ż
 ,  Ų+! ŻŌ 4  XiE  X  X4 X   ŌŌ   XĶ  X  X4 XiE ŌÓ     ÓŻ    Ż  
   @ D A « B D Ź E  F {G  H D I E J Ź     ’S r ’  ’N E B E K E R ’  ’A p p ’  ’B V A ’  ’C . F . R . ’  ’C o l v i n ’  ’D e r w i n s k i ’  ’V e t . A p p ’  ’R O ’  ’F E V 1 ’  ’F V C ’  ’B e r k s ’  ’B a r n h i l l ’  ’E b e r h a r d ’  ’P f a l l e r ’  ’A u m a n ’  ’U . S . C . ’  ’C o x ’  ’M a s o r s ’  ’G l y n n ’ " ’r e a d j u d i c a t e d ’"  ’A l l d a y ’  ’8 1 s t ’  ’E P T I ’  ’G o s s ’  ’B u c k l i n g e r ’  ’E M G ’  ’G a r l i t z ’  ’A O J ’  ’D M ’  ’L o r e n z o ’  ’D a m i a n ’  ’F a n g o n i l ’  ’M a u r o ’  ’A s p u i r a ’  ’V i c e n t e ’  ’D u l c e ’  ’T a r l a c ’  ’P a d i l l a ’  ’C h a n ’  ’b e r i ’  ’J a v i e r ’  ’M a n u e l ’  ’S u r ’  ’A g o o ’  ’T o m a s ’  ’S u t t m a n n ’  ’T i r p a k ’  ’G r o t t v e i t ’  ’E s p i r i t u ’  ’Q u i a m c o ’  ’F r a n k e l ’  ’E d e n f i e l d ’  ’o p ’  ’b a n c ’  ’B a i l e y ’  ’M c D a n i e l ’  ’A n n i s t o n ’  ’C f ’  ’A s c h e r l ’  ’C a l d w e l l ’  ’o k ’  ’d t a ’  ’S h e r r e r ’  ’A l b e a ’  ’A I T ’  ’S t a d i n ’  ’a g e [ d ’  ’A [ d v a n c e d ’  ’I [ n d i v i d u a l ’  ’T [ r a i n i n g ’  ’L ] a y ’  ’O c t [ o b e r ’  ’G o b b e r ’  ’Q u a r l e s ’  ’C o u s i n o ’  ’l a y p e r s o n ’  ’R o b i n e t t e ’  ’H e u e r ’  ’H a r v e y ’  ’T r u a x ’  ’S M R ’  ’s [ e r v i c e ’  ’c [ o n n e c t e d ’  ’r [ i g h t ’  ’l [ e f t ’  ’G a b r i e l s o n ’  ’w ] h i l e ’  ’S h o g r e n ’  ’M y e r s ’  ’E F ’  ’E s t e b a n ’  ’C r o m l e y ’  ’S e a n ’  ’C o n n a u g h t o n ’  ’E c k e r t ’  ’S e a m a n s ’  ’C h e r i n ’  ’M e l l o t t ’  ’M a r c i n i a k ’  ’J e f f r e y ’  ’L o u ’  ’R o n ’  ’G a r v i n ’  ’M c L a u g h l i n ’  ’S M R s ’  ’O ' H a r e ’  ’S O C ’  ’B r ’  ’I n t e r c a r g o ’  ’3 d ’  ’C a l u z a ’  ’F a l z o n e ’  ’t ] h e r e ’  ’d ] e a t h ’  ’a ] t ’  ’i n f o r m s ’  ’B e a u s o l e i l ’  ’A s h l e y ’  ’D o l a n ’  ’I ] n ’   « < ž6X  9   ` (   C o u r i e r                                                                                                         Xōx ž6X   @É 8Å; X@) ō\	  	   `   & T m s R m n       L e g a l   P r o                                                                                   XXt ō\	    P ØPU XP    (   J               Ų+$ ”   ”   Ō 4  Xé  X  X4 X   ŌŌ   X„ X  X4 Xé ŌÓ     Ó                   d                   # e   3 7 = C I Q Y a g ­   ­   1 .   a .   i .   ( 1 )   ( a )   ( i )   1 )   a )       (   °   (           2ŲY$ ¤   ¤   Ż
 ,  Ų+! ŻŌ 4  XiE  X  X4 X   ŌŌ   XĶ  X  X4 XiE ŌÓ     ÓŻ    ŻŌ D  XĶ  X X XĶ  ŌŌ D  ōę ō XD XĶ  ŌÓ    Óą     ąņņŚ    Ś0Ś
   
 Śóóz  å 
m  
   _  Ż
 '  ’’( ŻŻ    ŻŌ   Xģ  X  X Xģ ŌÓ    Č    ÓŅ    X° ŅŅ   °° ŅÓ    ’’Ą°   X Óß> - ( '                 ü ° ų*       d       > ßß> - ( '                  ° ų*       d      > ßĢĢą    H Ą ą1ĢĢą    H Ą ą2ĢĢą    H Ą ą3ĢĢą    H Ą ą4ĢĢą    H Ą ą5ĢĢą    H Ą ą6ĢĢą    H Ą ą7ĢĢą    H Ą ą8ĢĢą    H Ą ą9ĢĢą    Š Ą ą10ĢĢą    Š Ą ą11ĢĢą    Š Ą ą12ĢĢą    Š Ą ą13ĢĢą    Š Ą ą14ĢĢą    Š Ą ą15ĢĢą    Š Ą ą16ĢĢą    Š Ą ą17ĢĢą    Š Ą ą18ĢĢą    Š Ą ą19ĢĢą    Š Ą ą20ĢĢą    Š Ą ą21ĢĢą    Š Ą ą22ĢĢą    Š Ą ą23ĢĢą    Š Ą ą24ĢĢą    Š Ą ą25ĢĢą    Š Ą ą26ĢĢą    Š Ą ą27ĢĢą    Š Ą ą28Ō"       ą.Ą+   Ų'Ą+  Ą+" Ō3| N B JŻ   ž’" B J Q \ s  « Č ’’’’Ź ’’’’’’ń³÷?’’’’’’’’’’’æ?ū’÷’’’Ļ’’Ļ’ō=Ą4    /’’’’’’N÷’’ķ’’ßR«’ł                  šåś’’ž’’’’’’’ß’’`     <   @0Å’ń||qĒ’?ųńćĒ      Ųó’’’ż’’÷ßMß        @  ą     < ž6X  9   ` (   C o u r i e r           " ’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’_4@@d¼¤0LLdØ0@0ddddddddddd88ØØØdÄ |¤¤HX¼ x l¤Ä@d@dd0dlXld@`l84h8¤llllLL@l\XXXdddØĢ x    l  ¤   " ’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’_4@@d4LLdØ0@0ddddddddddd88ØØØ`ÄxPd¼|t|øTdTdd4hlXpX@`p<@l<¤pdplTTDp\`XXdddØĢ |   t |    " ’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’_,44P(@@P(8(TPPPPPPPPPP,,P |pttd<Hxh|d|Xl| ||t4T4PP(PXHXP4PX,,T,XXXX@@4XHpHHHTPTØ d  | X l    " ’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’_4<Dd¼0LLdØ0D0ddddddddddd88ØØØ\Ä| LL°xl|°|TdTdd0hhXhX<Tl48d4¤lhhd@H8lXTPPdddØĢ x   l |    " ’’~ Æ ² ’’Ż ’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’Z4@ d¼¤ LLdØ0@0ddddddddddd88 Ø dÄ |¤¤HX¼ x l¤Ä@ @ d dlXld@`l84h8¤llllLL@l\XXX/                                               d Ģ)     dd            d  ll               d ¤.                                    @        @@     "  u«Ü,ŁĄa’’’’e’’’’’’^;C]dd²CCCd²CCCCddddddddddCCČ²ČY²~~vCN~µsk~½CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYČńd dd  ddd   C dddddd ddd  YYYYY²Y~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXYXXXYYx|X~Y~Y|XddddddddC8C8C8C8oN d|8|H~8|8|8dtdddd²HHJlLlLlLkN|H|8~8dddddd½dXXX  d~8dJkN~8ddxdd~YC8 8d4  C                           C               dd   CC/ČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČČNd ddCYQQdd°ddd²²dFdddd²F CC hhd²44ČČddxxČdČdd v¤¤oo²     Ch      d  ½ ń  F«    ČČČdČČh²²ČČČ  d                                                                                                                                                ČČČČå²²ČČČ  ²dCCČČČČČxČ² CČddod²ČČdCdYdsČČČČČČČ]ČČČČČČČČČČČČČČ ČČČČČČČČČČČČ¤xČČ   ČČ    Uv                                                                      ČČ          Č        ČČ         ČÅdČČČČ      Y   Y                          C   C   C   C                                                               Ųx~o  xoY~NYdYC8YoµoYdYxsdxd d~YYxoxxxx~NdC8 8YY YxxYx x  xx CCC ddddd          dd         xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNNNNNNNdddddddddddddddddddddd888888888888YYYYYYY  YYYYYYYYYYYYxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx sdYC Č         0  ? x x x , ,   Xx įJž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’ž’’’’’’’ž’’’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’1  : T C T , , / XT »Mž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’ģ’’’’’’ö ’’’’q’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’gāž’ž’ž’ž’2  : T C T , , \  XT sĶž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’’’3 s 4 D 8 D , ,  ōD x}ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’ž’’’’’’’ž’’’’’{ ’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’4  : P C P , , ¾  XP Hkž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’’’’’’’’’ž’’’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’’’Ō5  : T C T , , ÷  XT »Mž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’ž’’’’’’’ž’’’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’T6  8 R C R , , .XR Żž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’ž’’’’’’’ž’’’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’ 3 5 6 7 8 9 : < Ō6X  9  ` +   C o u r i e r          * čų  	 p`   T m s R m n         ’* °ųH  	 p   T m s R m n   B o l d       ’)  Š   	 p`   T m s R m n         ’( čųć	 p`   T m s R m n   I t a l i c       * čų  	 p`   T m s R m n       L e g a l   ) Ļ¾¦  	 p`    C G   T i m e s         ÉØr" z ÉĻ                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
            Ķ	4-   
 '           U S C V A    0    U S C V A   
 .      
       
       
         Č       (                 #Ć$       ņņŚ    Ś0Ś
   
 Śóó    ’B V A ’  ’R O A ’  ’D o l a n ’  ’V e t . A p p ’  ’O ' H a r e ’  ’D e r w i n s k i ’  ’U . S . C . ’  ’3 d ’  ’o p ’  ’S M R s ’  ’M o o r e ’  ’v . D e r w i n s k i ’  ’D T A ’  ’D i x o n ’  ’J u r ’  ’C . J . S . ’  ’W o o d s o n ’  ’C i r ’  ’C a l i f a n o ’  ’2 d ’   ’g r o u n d e d n e s s ’   ’M e y e r ’  ’R o b i n e t t e ’  ’C . F . R . ’  ’b a n c ’  ’p l e a d i n g s ’  ’a f f ' d ’  ’w o r k s h e e t s ’  ’b r i e f f a c e ’  ’W ] h e n ’  ’I v e y ’  ’S t e i n b e r g ’  ’R u s s o ’  ’R O ’ $ ’r e a d j u d i c a t i o n ’$  ’H o w a r d ’  ’I I . A . ’   * 4\L	  	 p`  0 D u t c h   8 0 1   R o m a n   S p e e d o         ’B V A ’  ’R O A ’  ’D o l a n ’  ’V e t . A p p ’  ’O ' H a r e ’  ’D e r w i n s k i ’  ’U . S . C . ’  ’3 d ’  ’o p ’  ’S M R s ’  ’M o o r e ’  ’v . D e r w i n s k i ’  ’D T A ’  ’D i x o n ’  ’J u r ’  ’C . J . S . ’  ’W o o d s o n ’  ’C i r ’  ’C a l i f a n o ’  ’2 d ’   ’g r o u n d e d n e s s ’   ’M e y e r ’  ’R o b i n e t t e ’  ’C . F . R . ’  ’b a n c ’  ’p l e a d i n g s ’  ’a f f ' d ’  ’w o r k s h e e t s ’  ’b r i e f f a c e ’  ’W ] h e n ’  ’I v e y ’  ’S t e i n b e r g ’  ’R u s s o ’  ’R O ’ $ ’r e a d j u d i c a t i o n ’$  ’H o w a r d ’  ’I I . A . ’   ( uH  	   Z  6 T i m e s   N e w   R o m a n   R e g u l a r          
     Ż
 /  ŲY$ ŻŌ H  XiE  X  X4 X   ŌŌ I  XĶ  X  X4 XiE ŌÓ     ÓŌ K  XĶ  X X XĶ  ŌŌ K  ōę ō XD XĶ  ŌÓ    Óą     ąņņŚ    Ś5Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ    ŻIamnomoreexpressingmistrustofVAofficialsthanwastheCourtinņņSmith(George)v.Brownóó,whenitŠ   	 °      Šrefusedaninterpretationof38U.S.C.šš7103suggestedbytheSecretarythatwouldhaveallowedtheBVAChairmanĻtoš šdefeattherighttojudicialreviewatacriticaljunctureinacasebyorderingreconsiderationofapriordecisionĻwhichisbeyondthereachofthatrightšš,ņņSmithóó,8Vet.App.546,552(1996)(enbanc);orwastheCourtinŠ   	 R   ŠņņMacWhorterv.Derwinski,óówhenitfoundtheSecretaryššsmotionforsummarydispositionš šinappropriate...whenŠ   	 Č   Šitdoesnotaddressallissuespresentedandallformsofreliefpotentiallyimplicatedšš,ņņMacWhorteróó,2Vet.App.655,Š   	 Ž   Š657(1992);ņņseealsoid.,óó2Vet.App.133,135(1992);orwastheCourt(thesamejudgesasarehereempaneled)inŠ   	 T	¤   ŠņņMurillov.Brownóó,whenitrefusedtogive"theBVAalicense,withouttheSecretaryššshavingtoadheretotheŠ   	 
j   Šrequirementsofappropriatepublicnoticeandopportunitytocomment...topreventsuccessivefilingsofĻ[reconsiderationmotions],ortoforceaclaimanttoforgoappealtothisCourtifhewishedtoseekBVAĻreconsiderationagain,bydelayingactiononareconsiderationmotionuntiltheapplicable120dayjudicialappealĻperiodhadrunastotheunderlyingBVAdecisionšš,ņņMurilloóó,__Vet.App.__,__,No.96942,slipop.at4(Feb.26,Š   	 2   Š1997).WhatIņņņņamóóóódoingisseekingtoensurethatVAadherestotheproceduralprotectionsestablishedbylawandŠ   	 ųH	   Šregulation.< ž6X  9   ` (   C o u r i e r         ) ō\	  	   `   & T m s R m n       L e g a l   P r o    
     Ż
 /  ŲY$ ŻŌ 4  Xi  X  X4 X   ŌŌ   X· X  X4 Xi ŌÓ     ÓŌ D  X· X X X· ŌŌ D  ōF& ō XD X· ŌÓ    Óą     ąņņŚ    Ś1Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ    ŻAlthoughitisnottotallyclearwhatthose"miscellaneousotherdocuments"were,therecordonappealŠ   	 °      Šinadditiontothedocumentsitemizedabovecontainsonlytwohearingworksheets(Record(R.)at3435),ĻapparentlypreparedinconnectionwiththeOctober1990hearing;correspondencerelatingtothesolicitationofanĻindependentmedicalexpertin1992(R.at5559);a1994DepartmentofVeteransAffairs(VA)internalmemostatingĻthattheclaimsfolderwaslost(R.at61);copiesoflawsandregulations(R.at6376);andacopyofadocumentĻ(R.at7879)referredtoasa"briefface"intheBoardofVeterans'Appeals(BVAorBoard)decision(R.at4).* 4\L	  	 p`  0 D u t c h   8 0 1   R o m a n   S p e e d o       H<   
   *  Ż
 /  ŲY$ ŻŌ 4  Xi  X  X4 X   ŌŌ   X· X  X4 Xi ŌÓ     ÓŌ D  X· X X X· ŌŌ D  ōF& ō XD X· ŌÓ    Óą     ąņņŚ    Ś2Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ    ŻņņSeeóóVeterans'JudicialReviewAct,Pub.L.No.100687šš402,102Stat.4105,4122(1988)(foundatŠ   	 °      Š38U.S.C.šš7251note)(CourthasjurisdictiontoreviewonlythosefinalBVAbenefitsdecisionspriortowhichĻNoticeofDisagreementwasfiledonorafterNovember18,1988,astounderlyingdecisionofVAregionalofficeĻorotheragencyoforiginaljurisdiction);ņņSmith(William)v.Brownóó,35F.3d1516,1526(Fed.Cir.1994)(finalBVAŠ   	 R   Šdecisionnotsubjecttoreviewforclearandunmistakableerrorunder38C.F.R.šš3.105(a)). 
     Ż
 /  ŲY$ ŻŌ 4  Xi  X  X4 X   ŌŌ   X· X  X4 Xi ŌÓ     ÓŌ D  X· X X X· ŌŌ D  ōF& ō XD X· ŌÓ    Óą     ąņņŚ    Ś3Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ    ŻTotheextentthatevidencewasdescribedinthepriorBoarddecision,theBoardmightrelyuponthatŠ   	 °      Šdescriptionevenintheabsenceoftheclaimsfileevidencetoconcludethatevidencelaterpresentedwasnot,Ļinfact,new.TotheextentevidenceņņņņnotóóóódescribedinthatpriorBVAdecisionwaslaterpresented,inacaselikethis,Š   	 <   Šapresumptionthatitwasnewwouldappeartobeinorder. 
   3  Ż
 /  ŲY$ ŻŌ 4  Xi  X  X4 X   ŌŌ   X· X  X4 Xi ŌÓ     ÓŌ D  X· X X X· ŌŌ D  ōF& ō XD X· ŌÓ    Óą     ąņņŚ    Ś4Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ    ŻņņSeeóóņņ52Am.Jur.2DóóņņLostandDestroyedInstrumentsóóšš33(1970)("Asageneralrule,thesubstitutionorŠ   	 °      Šrestorationofajudicialrecordorpartsthereofcanbemadeonlyafterpropernoticetotheoppositeparty");ņņ4C.J.S.óóŠ   	 vĘ    ŠņņAppealandErroróóšš457(1993)("Copiesoflostordestroyedrecordsmustbesupplied,exceptwheretheportionlostŠ   	 <   Šisimmaterialtoaproperdeterminationofthecause.IthasbeenheldthatthelossofaportionoftherecordisnoĻgroundforreversal,ņņņņunlessthelosswasduetoafaultoftheappelleeóóóó...."(emphasisadded);"SomeauthoritiesŠ   	 Č   Šholdthat,wherematerialpartsoftherecordarelostordestroyedthroughnofaultoftheappellant,theappellateĻcourtshouldremandthecaseprovidedappellanthasexercisedduediligenceandisnotguiltyoflaches");ņņseealsoŠ   	 T	¤   ŠFowlerv.Califanoóó,596F.2d600,604(3dCir.1979)(remandingsocialsecurityclaimwhererecordofappellant'sŠ   	 
j   Špriorclaim,throughnofaultofherown,hadbeenlostandappellantprovidedevidencetoreconstructtherecord;Ļthecourtwas"inclinedtoagree"thatitis"unconscionablefortheAdministrationtotakeapositionthatineffectĻpermitsittoprofitbyitsownerrors"). 
     Ż
 /  ŲY$ ŻŌ 4  Xi  X  X4 X   ŌŌ   X· X  X4 Xi ŌÓ     ÓŌ D  X· X X X· ŌŌ D  ōF& ō XD X· ŌÓ    Óą     ąņņŚ    Ś5Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ    ŻIamnomoreexpressingmistrustofVAofficialsthanwastheCourtinņņSmith(George)v.Brownóó,whenŠ   	 °      Šitrefusedaninterpretationof38U.S.C.šš7103suggestedbytheSecretarythatwouldhaveallowedtheBVAĻChairmantoš šdefeattherighttojudicialreviewatacriticaljunctureinacasebyorderingreconsiderationofapriorĻdecisionwhichisbeyondthereachofthatrightšš,ņņSmithóó,8Vet.App.546,552(1996)(enbanc);orwastheCourtŠ   	 R   ŠinņņMacWhorterv.Derwinski,óówhenitfoundtheSecretaryššsmotionforsummarydispositionš šinappropriate...whenŠ   	 Č   Šitdoesnotaddressallissuespresentedandallformsofreliefpotentiallyimplicatedšš,ņņMacWhorteróó,2Vet.App.655,Š   	 Ž   Š657(1992);ņņseealsoid.,óó2Vet.App.133,135(1992);orwastheCourt(thesamejudgesasarehereempaneled)inŠ   	 T	¤   ŠņņMurillov.Brownóó,whenitrefusedtogive"theBVAalicense,withouttheSecretaryššshavingtoadheretotheŠ   	 
j   Šrequirementsofappropriatepublicnoticeandopportunitytocomment...topreventsuccessivefilingsofĻ[reconsiderationmotions],ortoforceaclaimanttoforgoappealtothisCourtifhewishedtoseekBVAĻreconsiderationagain,bydelayingactiononareconsiderationmotionuntiltheapplicable120dayjudicialappealĻperiodhadrunastotheunderlyingBVAdecisionšš,ņņMurilloóó,__Vet.App.__,__,No.96942,slipop.at4(Feb.Š   	 2   Š26,1997).WhatIņņņņamóóóódoingisseekingtoensurethatVAadherestotheproceduralprotectionsestablishedbylawŠ   	 ųH	   Šandregulation.    ’S r ’  ’N E B E K E R ’  ’A p p ’  ’B V A ’  ’C . F . R . ’  ’C o l v i n ’  ’D e r w i n s k i ’  ’V e t . A p p ’  ’R O ’  ’F E V 1 ’  ’F V C ’  ’B e r k s ’  ’B a r n h i l l ’  ’E b e r h a r d ’  ’P f a l l e r ’  ’A u m a n ’  ’U . S . C . ’  ’C o x ’  ’M a s o r s ’  ’G l y n n ’ " ’r e a d j u d i c a t e d ’"  ’A l l d a y ’  ’8 1 s t ’  ’E P T I ’  ’G o s s ’  ’B u c k l i n g e r ’  ’E M G ’  ’G a r l i t z ’  ’A O J ’  ’D M ’  ’L o r e n z o ’  ’D a m i a n ’  ’F a n g o n i l ’  ’M a u r o ’  ’A s p u i r a ’  ’V i c e n t e ’  ’D u l c e ’  ’T a r l a c ’  ’P a d i l l a ’  ’C h a n ’  ’b e r i ’  ’J a v i e r ’  ’M a n u e l ’  ’S u r ’  ’A g o o ’  ’T o m a s ’  ’S u t t m a n n ’  ’T i r p a k ’  ’G r o t t v e i t ’  ’E s p i r i t u ’  ’Q u i a m c o ’  ’F r a n k e l ’  ’E d e n f i e l d ’  ’o p ’  ’b a n c ’  ’B a i l e y ’  ’M c D a n i e l ’  ’A n n i s t o n ’  ’C f ’  ’A s c h e r l ’  ’C a l d w e l l ’  ’o k ’  ’d t a ’  ’S h e r r e r ’  ’A l b e a ’  ’A I T ’  ’S t a d i n ’  ’a g e [ d ’  ’A [ d v a n c e d ’  ’I [ n d i v i d u a l ’  ’T [ r a i n i n g ’  ’L ] a y ’  ’O c t [ o b e r ’  ’G o b b e r ’  ’Q u a r l e s ’  ’C o u s i n o ’  ’l a y p e r s o n ’  ’R o b i n e t t e ’  ’H e u e r ’  ’H a r v e y ’  ’T r u a x ’  ’S M R ’  ’s [ e r v i c e ’  ’c [ o n n e c t e d ’  ’r [ i g h t ’  ’l [ e f t ’  ’G a b r i e l s o n ’  ’w ] h i l e ’  ’S h o g r e n ’  ’M y e r s ’  ’E F ’  ’E s t e b a n ’  ’C r o m l e y ’  ’S e a n ’  ’C o n n a u g h t o n ’  ’E c k e r t ’  ’S e a m a n s ’  ’C h e r i n ’  ’M e l l o t t ’  ’M a r c i n i a k ’  ’J e f f r e y ’  ’L o u ’  ’R o n ’  ’G a r v i n ’  ’M c L a u g h l i n ’  ’S M R s ’  ’O ' H a r e ’  ’S O C ’  ’B r ’  ’I n t e r c a r g o ’  ’3 d ’  ’C a l u z a ’  ’F a l z o n e ’  ’t ] h e r e ’  ’d ] e a t h ’  ’a ] t ’  ’i n f o r m s ’  ’B e a u s o l e i l ’  ’A s h l e y ’  ’D o l a n ’  ’I ] n ’       ’B V A ’  ’R O A ’  ’D o l a n ’  ’V e t . A p p ’  ’O ' H a r e ’  ’D e r w i n s k i ’  ’U . S . C . ’  ’3 d ’  ’o p ’  ’S M R s ’  ’M o o r e ’  ’v . D e r w i n s k i ’  ’D T A ’  ’D i x o n ’  ’J u r ’  ’C . J . S . ’  ’W o o d s o n ’  ’C i r ’  ’C a l i f a n o ’  ’2 d ’   ’g r o u n d e d n e s s ’   ’M e y e r ’  ’R o b i n e t t e ’  ’C . F . R . ’  ’b a n c ’  ’p l e a d i n g s ’  ’a f f ' d ’  ’w o r k s h e e t s ’  ’b r i e f f a c e ’  ’W ] h e n ’  ’I v e y ’  ’S t e i n b e r g ’  ’R u s s o ’  ’R O ’ $ ’r e a d j u d i c a t i o n ’$  ’H o w a r d ’  ’I I . A . ’   ( uH  	   Z  6 T i m e s   N e w   R o m a n   R e g u l a r           Čw   
     Ż
 /  ō$ ŻŌ 4  Xé  X  X4 X   ŌŌ   X„ X  X4 Xé ŌÓ     ÓŌ D  X„ X X X„ ŌŌ D  ōV ō XD X„ ŌÓ    Óą     ąņņŚ    Ś1Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ    ŻAlthoughitisnottotallyclearwhatthose"miscellaneousotherdocuments"were,therecordonappealŠ   	 °      Šinadditiontothedocumentsitemizedabovecontainsonlytwohearingworksheets(Record(R.)at3435),ĻapparentlypreparedinconnectionwiththeOctober1990hearing;correspondencerelatingtothesolicitationofanŠ    < ¢  Šindependentmedicalexpertin1992(R.at5559);a1994DepartmentofVeteransAffairs(VA)internalmemostatingĻthattheclaimsfolderwaslost(R.at61);copiesoflawsandregulations(R.at6376);andacopyofabrieffaceĻreferredtointheBoardofVeterans'Appeals(BVA)decision(R.at7879). 
      Ż
 /  ō$ ŻŌ 4  Xé  X  X4 X   ŌŌ   X„ X  X4 Xé ŌÓ     ÓŌ D  X„ X X X„ ŌŌ D  ōV ō XD X„ ŌÓ    Óą     ąņņŚ    Ś2Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ    ŻņņSeeóóVeterans'JudicialReviewAct,Pub.L.No.100687šš402,102Stat.4105,4122(1988)(foundatŠ   	 °      Š38U.S.C.šš7251note)(CourthasjurisdictiontoreviewonlythosefinalBVAbenefitsdecisionspriortowhichĻNoticeofDisagreementwasfiledonorafterNovember18,1988,astounderlyingdecisionofVAregionalofficeĻorotheragencyoforiginaljurisdiction);ņņSmith(William)v.Brownóó,35F.3d1516,1526(1994)(finalBVAdecisionŠ   	 R   Šnotsubjecttoreviewforclearandunmistakableerrorunder38C.F.R.šš3.105(a)). 
     Ż
 /  ō$ ŻŌ 4  Xé  X  X4 X   ŌŌ   X„ X  X4 Xé ŌÓ     ÓŌ D  X„ X X X„ ŌŌ D  ōV ō XD X„ ŌÓ    Óą     ąņņŚ    Ś3Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ    ŻTotheextentthatevidencewasdescribedinthepriorBoarddecision,theBoardmightrelyuponthatŠ   	 °      Šdescriptionevenintheabsenceoftheclaimsfileevidencetoconcludethatevidencelaterpresentedwasnot,Ļinfact,new.TotheextentevidenceņņņņnotóóóódescribedinthatpriorBVAdecisionwaslaterpresented,inacaselikethis,Š   	 <   Šapresumptionthatitwasnewwouldappeartobeinorder. 
   7  Ż
 /  ō$ ŻŌ 4  Xé  X  X4 X   ŌŌ   X„ X  X4 Xé ŌÓ     ÓŌ D  X„ X X X„ ŌŌ D  ōV ō XD X„ ŌÓ    Óą     ąņņŚ    Ś4Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ    ŻņņSeeóóņņ52Am.Jur.2DóóņņLostandDestroyedInstrumentsóóšš33(1970)("Asageneralrule,thesubstitutionorŠ   	 °      Šrestorationofajudicialrecordorpartsthereofcanbemadeonlyafterpropernoticetotheoppositeparty");ņņ4C.J.S.óóŠ   	 vĘ    ŠņņAppealandErroróóšš457(1993)("Copiesoflostordestroyedrecordsmustbesupplied,exceptwheretheportionlostŠ   	 <   Šisimmaterialtoaproperdeterminationofthecause.IthasbeenheldthatthelossofaportionoftherecordisnoĻgroundforreversal,ņņņņunlessthelosswasduetoafaultoftheappelleeóóóó...."(emphasisadded);"SomeauthoritiesŠ   	 Č   Šholdthat,wherematerialpartsoftherecordarelostordestroyedthroughnofaultoftheappellant,theappellateĻcourtshouldremandthecaseprovidedappellanthasexercisedduediligenceandisnotguiltyoflaches");ņņseealsoŠ    T	¤ ą  ŠFowlerv.Califanoóó,596F.2d600,604(3dCir.1979)(remandingsocialsecurityclaimwhererecordofappellant'sŠ   	 °      Špriorclaim,throughnofaultofherown,hadbeenlostandappellantprovidedevidencetoreconstructtherecord;ĻtheCourtwas"inclinedtoagree"thatitis"unconscionablefortheAdministrationtotakeapositionthatineffectĻpermitsittoprofitbyitsownerrors"). 
     Ż
 /  ō$ ŻŌ 4  Xé  X  X4 X   ŌŌ   X„ X  X4 Xé ŌÓ     ÓŌ D  X„ X X X„ ŌŌ D  ōV ō XD X„ ŌÓ    Óą     ąņņŚ    Ś5Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ    ŻIamnomoreexpressingmistrustofVAofficialsthanwastheCourtinņņSmith(George)v.Brownóó,whenŠ   	 °      Šitrefusedaninterpretationof38U.S.C.šš7103suggestedbytheSecretarythatwouldhaveallowedtheBVAĻChairmantoš šdefeattherighttojudicialreviewatacriticaljunctureinacasebyorderingreconsiderationofapriorĻdecisionwhichisbeyondthereachofthatrightšš,ņņSmithóó,8Vet.App.546,552(1996)(enbanc);orwastheCourtŠ   	 R   ŠinņņMacWhorterv.Derwinski,óówhenitfoundtheSecretaryššsmotionforsummarydispositionš šinappropriate...whenŠ   	 Č   Šitdoesnotaddressallissuespresentedandallformsofreliefpotentiallyimplicatedšš,ņņMacWhorteróó,2Vet.App.655,Š   	 Ž   Š657(1992);ņņseealsoid.,óó2Vet.App.133,135(1992);orwastheCourt(thesamejudgesasarehereempaneled)inŠ   	 T	¤   ŠņņMurillov.Brownóó,whenitrefusedtogive"theBVAalicense,withouttheSecretaryššshavingtoadheretotheŠ   	 
j   Šrequirementsofappropriatepublicnoticeandopportunitytocomment...topreventsuccessivefilingsofĻ[reconsiderationmotions],ortoforceaclaimanttoforgoappealtothisCourtifhewishedtoseekBVAĻreconsiderationagain,bydelayingactiononareconsiderationmotionuntiltheapplicable120dayjudicialappealĻperiodhadrunastotheunderlyingBVAdecisionšš,ņņMurilloóó,__Vet.App.__,__,No.96942,slipop.at4(Feb.Š   	 2   Š26,1997).WhatIņņņņamóóóódoingisseekingtoensurethatVAadherestotheproceduralprotectionsestablishedbylawŠ   	 ųH	   Šandregulation.Ż
 ,  Ų+! ŻŌ 4  Xj  X  X4 X   ŌŌ   X X  X4 Xj ŌÓ     ÓŻ    Żń AńÓ=         XŠ  X       d     Š            d= ÓńAńŃ7         X X       dš                  dČ 7 ŃŃ    f ŃńAńÓ=    j  XŠ   X       d     Š            d= ÓńAńą@    l
l
- ģ ąņņUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFVETERANSAPPEALSóóŠ   	 °      ŠĢĢą@    åå< ģ ąNo.950465ĢĢą@    5 ģ ąņņAnnMarciniak,Appellant,óóŠ   	 `	°   ŠĢą@    @ ģ ąņņv.óóŠ   	 @   ŠĢą@    ¤¤; ģ ąņņJesseBrown,óóŠ   	  p	   Šą@    ee- ģ ąņņSecretaryofVeteransAffairs,Appellee.óóŠ   	 `	
   Šą     ąĢĢą@    33+ ģ ąOnAppealfromtheBoardofVeterans'AppealsĢĢĢą@    łł1 ģ ą(Decidedń FńńEńAprilńEńńFńńEńńEńńFńAprilńFńńEńńEńńGń21,1997ńGńń IńńIńńJńŌ% L    ŌńJń)ń HńĢĢą@ @  ģģA ģ ąńHńĢņņĢą     ąJeffreyJ.Woodóówasonthebriefsfortheappellantņņ.óóŠ   	 ą   ŠĢą     ąņņMaryLouKeener,óóGeneralCounsel;ņņRonGarvinóó,AssistantGeneralCounsel;ņņThomasA.Š   	 pĄ   ŠMcLaughlinóó,DeputyAssistantGeneralCounsel;andņņRosalindEageróówereonthebrieffortheŠ   	 `°   Šappellee.ĢĢą     ąBeforeNEBEKER,ņņChiefJudge,óóandIVERSandSTEINBERG,ņņJudges.óóŠ   	 0   ŠĢą     ąNEBEKERņņ,ChiefJudge,óófiledtheopinionoftheCourt.STEINBERG,ņņJudgeóó,filedaŠ   	 `   Šdissentingopinion.ĢĢÓ         Óą     ąNEBEKER,ņņChiefJudgeóó:Theappellant,AnnMarciniak,appealsaMarch27,1995,Š   	 ą0   ŠdecisionoftheBoardofVeterans'Appeals(BVAorBoard)whichfoundthatnewandmaterialĻevidencehadnotbeensubmittedtoreopenherclaimsforserviceconnectionforthecausedeathĻofherhusband,theveteran.Afterconsideringtherecordonappealandthebriefsoftheparties,ĻtheCourtwillaffirmtheBoard'sdecisionforthefollowingreasons.ĢĢą@    AA= ģ ąņņI.FACTSóóŠ   	 P( #)   Šą     ąTheveteran,HenryW.Marciniak,servedonactivedutyfromNovember1940toOctoberĻ1945.Record(R.)at3.Accordingtoa1980BVAdecision,theveteran'sservicemedicalrecordsĻ(SMRs)revealedhospitalizationandtreatmentforscrubtyphusandmalariafromAugust1944toĻń JńńDńŌ% A    ŌńDńńJńJanuary1945,andtwocomplaintsofloosebowelmovementswithabdominalcrampsatthattime.Š    š-@)1    ŠR.at24,2632.The1980decisionalsorevealedthat,in1950,ahemorrhoidectomywasĻperformedafterhecomplainedthathehadhadbloodystoolsduringthepastyear.DiagnosesatĻthattimeincludedhemorrhoidaltagsandproctitis.R.at28.Theregionaloffice(RO)deniedĻserviceconnectionforhemorrhoids,varicosities,andorganicdisabilityofthegastrointestinalĻsystem,butawardednoncompensableratingsforscrubtyphusandmalaria.Atahearingin1965,ĻtheveteranreportedthathedidnothaveproblemswithdiarrheauntilafterhehadtheĻhemorrhoidectomyin1950,andthathehadrecurrentproblemsuntil1962whentheconditionĻbecameseverelydisabling.R.at29.Ģą     ąTheveterandiedonAugust8,1965,ofgeneralizedperitonitisduetoadrenalexhaustion,Ļandchroniculcerativecolitis.R.at12,24.Atthetimeofhisdeath,hewasserviceconnectedĻforscrubtyphusandmalaria,eachofwhichwasratedasnoncompensable.R.at27.AtahearingĻbeforetheRO,Mrs.Marciniakandfriendsoftheveterantestifiedthatafterservice,theveteranĻhadcomplainedofbloodinhisstoolsanddiarrhea.R.at29.AlsosubmittedwastestimonybyĻMrs.Marciniak'srepresentativethatmedicaltextbooksdemonstratedaconnectionbetweenĻulcerativecolitisanddysentery.ņņId.óóInSeptember1966,theBVAdeniedentitlementtoserviceŠ   	 0    Šconnectionforthecauseoftheveteran'sdeath.R.at24.Ģą     ąIn1967,copiesofthemedicaltextbookarticlesweresubmittedtoVA,alongwithĻadditionalstatementsfromMrs.Marciniakandtheveteran'sfriendsfromservice,allattemptingĻtolinktheveteran'sdeathtohisservice.R.at29.In1971,theBVAagaindeniedMrs.ĻMarciniak'sclaim,notingthattheSMRsdidnotshowgastrointestinalsymptomsinserviceandĻthatscrubtyphusdidnotinvolveaninfectionorulcerationofthebowel.RegardingthemedicalĻtextbookarticles,theBoardstatedthattheevidenceinthisparticularcasedidnotinvolvetheĻcircumstancesdescribedinthearticles.R.at30.Ģą     ąIn1979,Mrs.Marciniakrequestedreconsiderationofthe1971decision,andonMarch4,Ļ1980,theBVAagaindeterminedthatentitlementtoserviceconnectionwasnotestablishedfortheĻcauseoftheveteran'sdeath.R.at3132.Afterthisdecisionwasrendered,theveteran'soriginalĻclaimsfolderwaslost.InOctober1988,theclaimsfolderwasreconstructedafterarequesttoŠ   	 ,`'8   Šreopentheclaimwassubmittedbytheappellant.HerNoticeofDisagreement(NOD)wasĻreceivedbyVAinApril1990(R.at3,79),andastatementofthecase(SOC)wasissuedinMayĻ1990.TheappellantandhersontestifiedbeforeatravelingsectionoftheBoardinOctober1990,ĻandtheappealwasdocketedattheBoardinMarch1991.R.at7879.WhiletheBoardattemptedĻtoprocureanindependentmedicalexpert'sopinion,thereconstructedclaimsfolderwaslost.ĻR.at3,18.TheROandBVAbeingunabletofindeithertheoriginalorthereconstructedfiles,Ļtheveteran'sfolderwasagainreconstructed.R.at4.ThesecondreconstructedfoldercontainsĻthelastpageoftheSeptember1966BVAdecision(R.at24),acompletecopyofthe1980BVAĻdecision(R.at2632),theOctober1990transcriptofthetestimonyofferedbyMrs.MarciniakĻandherson(R.at3753),andothermiscellaneousdocuments.NoSMRsareinthesecondĻreconstructedfolder.Ģą     ąOnMarch27,1995,theBVAreviewedtheavailabledocuments,determinedthattheĻappellant'sdueprocessrightshadnotbeenviolatedduringtheappellateprocess,anddeclinedtoĻreopenherclaimasnewandmaterialevidencehadnotbeenpresentedsincethe1966denial.R.Ļat220.Inthedetaileddecision,theBoardcited38U.S.C.šš7104(d)andthisCourt'sdecisionĻinņņO'Harev.Derwinskióó,1Vet.App.365,367(1991)forthepropositionthataheighteneddutyŠ   	 Č   Šexistedtoexplainthoroughlythereasonsandbasesforitsdecision,especiallyinlightofthetwice¼lostclaimsfolder.R.at5.TheBoarddeterminedthatthenewevidencewasnotmaterial,asitĻdidnotlinktheveteran'sserviceconnectedconditionstohisdeath.R.at1718.ĢĢą@    LL; ģ ąņņII.ANALYSISóóŠ   	 Š  (   ŠÓ   ÓA.ProceduralDueProcess¹Ó     Óą     ąAsapreliminarymatter,theCourtrecognizestheunfortunatecircumstancesunderwhichĻtheBoardandMrs.Marciniakhavebeenrequiredtoadjudicatethisclaim.HavingtwicelosttheĻclaimsfolder,andbeingunabletolocatethemissingSMRsandrelateddocuments(R.at61),theĻBoardwasforcedtorelyonthefactsasrecordedonthefirstpageofthe1966BVAdecisionandĻinthe1980BVAdecision.TheappellantallegesthattheSecretaryfailedinhisdutytoassistinĻthattheSMRswerenotobtainedforthisappealandthatconsequently,prejudicialerrorexistsinĻtheBVA'sfactualfindings.However,theCourtholdsthat,giventhecircumstancesintheinstantŠ   	 ,`'8   Šcase,wemustapplyapresumptionofregularityastotheBVA'sfindingsoffactin1980.ņņCf.Š   	 °      ŠDolanv.Brownóó,9Vet.App.358,362(1996)(absent"clearevidence"thatanevidentiaryŠ   	 h   Šassumptionwasnotproperlyapplied,theCourtconcludedthattherelevantlawandevidencehadĻbeenconsidered).ToholdotherwisewouldrequirethisCourttopresumethattheBVA,initsĻpriordecisionsonthisclaim,didnotproperlydischargeitsofficialduties.ņņSeeAshleyv.Š   	 P
    ŠDerwinskióó,2Vet.App.62,64(1992)(Courtmustapplythe"presumptionofregularity"to"'theŠ   	 ø
   Šofficialactsofpublicofficers,andintheabsenceofclearevidencetothecontrary,[must]presumeĻthattheyhaveproperlydischargedtheirofficialduties.'")(quotingņņUnitedStatesv.ChemicalŠ   	 Ų	   ŠFoundation,Inc.óó,272U.S.1,1415(1926)).SuchapresumptionwouldbebeyondourŠ   	 š@   Šjurisdiction,asourjudicialreviewofBoarddecisionsdidnotbeginuntil1988.Ģą     ąThedissenter'smistrustoftheSecretaryandhissubordinatesisbynomeanssharedbytheĻCourt.ņņSeeinfraóóat__,slipop.at13.ThattwoVAemployeesnotconcernedwiththiscaseŠ   	 (x   ŠcommittedcriminalactsindestroyingVArecordsisnotsufficientreasontoadoptaholdingbasedĻonasuspicionthattheSecretaryandhissubordinateswouldviolatetheiroathsofoffice.AstheĻappellanthasofferednoclearevidencethattheBVAwasderelictinperformingitsduties,theĻCourtconcludesthatalltherelevantevidencewasconsideredand,inthe1980decision,theBVAĻaccuratelyrecordedthefactsastheythenexisted.WhileitisclearthattheBoardtreatedtheĻappealsmadesubsequenttothe1966decisionasattemptstoreopen,itisapparent,asamatterofĻlaw,thatnoetiologicalrelationshipbetweentheveteran'sdeathandhisserviceconnectedĻconditionshadbeenestablishedatthetimethefirstdecisionwasrendered.R.at24.IntheĻsectionentitledFindingsofFact,the1966BoardnotedthattheveteranhadnosymptomsofcolitisĻduringhisinservicehospitalization;thathehadnochronictypeofdiarrheaatthetimeofĻdischarge;thathedidnotloseweightinservice;thatnocolitisofanytypewasfoundonĻexaminationinJanuary1951;thatulcerativecolitiswasnotdiagnoseduntil1962;that"[t]hereĻ[was]noetiologicalrelationshipbetweenulcerativecolitisandtheserviceconnecteddisabilitiesĻofscrubtyphusandmalaria";andthattheveteran's"[d]eathdidnotresultfromaservice¼connecteddisability."R.at24.Moreimportantly,asaconclusionoflaw,theBoardfoundthatĻserviceconnectionfortheveteran'sdeathwasnotestablishedbyreasonoftheveteran'sservice¼connecteddisabilities,andwasnotetiologicallyrelatedtoanydiseaseordisabilitywhichwasŠ   	 ,`'8   Šincurredinoraggravatedbyservice.R.at24,29.Ģą     ąTheBVAdecisionof1980notedthat"[a]tahearingattheregionalofficeinMay1965,ĻtheveteranreportedthathedidnothaveanyproblemswithdiarrheauntilafterhehadaĻhemorrhoidectomyin1950,"almostfiveyearsafterhisdischarge.R.at29.Fromthis,itisĻclearthattheappellanthasthenfailedtopresentawellgroundedclaim.ņņSeeMurphyv.Š   	 P
    ŠDerwinskióó,1Vet.App.78(1990).However,regardlessofwhetherthisclaimisanalyzedtoŠ   	 ø
   Šdeterminewhetheritiswellgrounded,ortodeterminewhetheritshouldbereopened,theresultĻisthesame.Withoutthemedicalevidencetolinktheveteran'sservicetohisdeath,theevidenceĻisinsufficienttomeeteithertest.ņņGrottveitv.Brownóó,5Vet.App.91,9293(1993);ņņMorayv.Š   	 š@   ŠBrownóó,5Vet.App.211,214(1993).Accordingly,theBVA'sinabilitytoobtainthemissingŠ   	 XØ   Šdocumentsisnotacauseforremandthat,inalllikelihood,wouldbefutileanyway.Ģą     ąMrs.MarciniakalsoarguesthatitisindeterminablewhethertheSOCissuedinMay1990Ļcontainedthenecessaryinformationasrequiredbylaw.38U.S.C.šš7105(d);ņņseealsoóó38C.F.R.Š   	 ą   Ššš19.29(1995).TheSecretaryhasconcededthattheSOCisunavailableforreview.Secretary'sĻBrief(Br.)at18.Nevertheless,theappellanthasnotallegedwithspecificityanyprejudicethatĻresultedfromthelossoftheSOC.ņņCf.Parkerv.Brownóó,9Vet.App.476,481(1996)(VA'sŠ   	 Č   Šfailuretofilloutaformrequiredbyregulationwasnotń ?ńń?ńbasisforremandwherenoprejudicetoĻappellantestablished).Moreover,inthedecisionhereonappeal,theBVAsetforththepurposeĻandrequirementsofaproperSOC,andgavespecificdetailstodemonstratehowtheyhadbeenĻmetinthecourseoftheseproceedings.R.at711.TheCourtholdsthattheBVAcompliedwithĻtherequirementssetforthinņņO'Hare,supraóó,inthatheightenedconsiderationwasaffordedduetoŠ   	 Š  (   Šthemissingrecords.TheBoardconcluded:"[I]nlightoftheevidencethatduringthecurrentĻappeal[Mrs.Marciniak]hasbeenawareoftheissueonappeal,thepertinentlawsandregulations,Ļandtherelevantevidence,anydeficienciesthatmayhavebeencontainedintheStatementoftheĻCaseconstitutedharmlesserror."R.at10.Intheabsenceofdemonstratedprejudice,theCourtĻconcludesthattheunavailabilityoftheSOC,andthepresumptionofregularityastoit,likeastoĻothermissingrecords,doesnotwarrantaremandforfurtheradjudicationwhichwouldlikewiseĻbefutile.Thus,theunavailabilityoftheSOCisharmless.ņņSeeóó38U.S.C.šš7261(b)(requiringŠ   	 Ø*ų%6   ŠCourttotakeintoaccountruleofprejudicialerror);ņņseealsoO'Hare,supra.óóŠ   	 ,`'8   ŠÓ   ÓB.NewandMaterialEvidenceĢÓ  Ė4   Óą     ąTheCourtreviewsdenovowhethernewandmaterialevidencehasbeenpresentedtoĻreopenaclaim.ņņSee,e.g.,Masorsv.Derwinskióó,2Vet.App.181,185(1992).ThenewlyŠ   	 Š   Šsubmittedevidenceincludes:(1)excerptsfrommedicaltextbooks,includingsupportforthetheoryĻthataconnectionbetweendysenteryandchroniculcerativecolitisexists;(2)testimonybyfriendsĻandfamilyoftheveteran;and(3)astatementfromapersonwhoservedwiththeveteran.Mrs.ĻMarciniakhasnotsubmittedanymedicalevidencelinkingtheveteran'sserviceconnectedscrubĻtyphusormalariatotheallegeddysentery,andthenfurthertohisdeath.Where,ashere,theĻdeterminativeissueisoneofmedicalcausation,competentmedicalevidenceconnectingthecauseĻofdeathtoaninservicediseaseisrequired.ņņCaluzav.Brownóó,7Vet.App.498,506(1995).Š   	 XØ   Š"[L]ayassertionsofmedicalcausationcannotsufficetoreopenaclaimunder38U.S.C.šš5108."ĻņņFalzonev.Brownóó,8Vet.App.398,403(1995).ThereappearstohavebeennoevidencethattheŠ   	 (x   Šveteranhaddysenteryduringservice.Therefore,themedicalliteraturelinkinghisdeathtothatĻconditionisnotmaterial.ņņEdenfieldv.Brownóó,8Vet.App.384,388(1995)(enbanc).WhiletheŠ   	 ųH   ŠtestimonyoftheappellantandhersondisclosetheirobservationofsymptomsfromwhichtheĻveteransuffered,therehasbeennocompetentmedicalevidencelinkingtheveteran'sservice¼connectedconditionstothosesymptoms,andthenfurthertohisdeath.Thus,theCourtholdsthatĻnewandmaterialevidencehasnotbeenpresentedinsupportoftheappellant'sclaim.ņņSeeóóŠ   	 č"   Š38U.S.C.šššš5108,7104(b);ņņseealsoMorayv.Brownóó,5Vet.App.211,214(1993)(holdingthatŠ   	  P$   Šlayassertionsofmedicalcausationcannotserveasthepredicatetoreopenaclaim).Ģą     ąFinally,theappellantassertsthatVAfailedtocomplywithitsdutytonotifyaclaimantofĻtheevidencenecessarytocompletetheapplicationforbenefits.38U.S.C.šš5103(a).TheĻappellant'sbriefstatesthatduringtheinformalhearingpresentation,"theveteran'ssonrelated...Ļthathisfatherindicatedthatdoctorshadtoldhimhisconditionwasrelatedtoservice."ReplyĻBriefat1.However,recoursetothehearingtranscriptrevealsthattheveteran'ssonactuallysaid:Ļ"WewerealwaysmakingtripsbackandforthtothedoctorsandthediagnosisthathehadalwaysĻtoldmewasthatitwasservicerelated."R.at43.ThistestimonyistooattenuatedtoshowĻavailabilityofmedicalrecordssufficienttotriggerthesection5103(a)duty.Nothingintheson'sĻtestimonyputtheSecretaryonnoticeofthelikelyexistenceofcompetentmedicalevidencethatŠ   	 ,`'8   Šwouldberelevanttoafullandfairadjudicationoftheclaim.ņņRobinettev.Brownóó,8Vet.App.69,Š   	 °      Š77(1995).UnderņņRobinetteóó,theremustbesomedegreeofprobabilitythatoncetheSecretaryŠ   	 h   Šinformstheappellantofthenecessityofastatementfromthedoctor,theappellantwillbeabletoĻobtainsuchastatement.ņņId;seealsoBeausoleilv.Brownóó,8Vet.App.459,465(1996)(CourtŠ   	 č8   Šstatedthatthereisašš5103(a)duty"inthelimitedcircumstanceswherethereisanincompleteĻapplicationthatreferencesotherknownandexistingevidence").TheCourtthusholdsthattheĻcircumstanceswhichwouldtriggerašš5103(a)dutyarenotpresentinthiscase.ĢĢą@    : ģ ąņņIII.CONCLUSIONóóŠ   	 š@   Šą     ąAccordingly,theBoard'sdecisionisAFFIRMED.ń>ńĢĢń>ńń?ńŃ7         X X       dš    X X       dš 7 ŃŌ F  X] X X X· Ōń?ńń @ńń?ńĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢń?ńń@ńń?ńŃ     Ńą     ąSTEINBERG,ņņJudgeóó,dissenting:Thisisacasewherethemajority'sapplicationofjudicialŠ   	 (x   Šdoctrine,withoutregardtothecontextofthatapplication,producesaresultcontrarytolawandtoĻthedictatesofcommonsenseandfairness.Becauseno"presumptionofregularity"canmaketheĻpatentlyirregularregularorthefaciallyunjustjust,andforthereasonsthatfollow,IdissentfromĻthemajority'sdispositionandthepathbywhichitisreached.Inmyview,theBoardofVeterans'ĻAppeals(BVAorBoard)hadanaffirmativedutytotakefurtherstepstotrytoreconstructtheĻmissingclaimsfile.ĢĢą@    jj+ ģ ąņņI.LossandReconstructionoftheClaimsFileóóŠ   	 š@&   Šą     ąThemajority'sopinionconcludesthatthereisnoconstitutionalorotherlegalinfirmityintheĻMarch27,1995,Boarddecisioninthiscase,whichproceededtoanadjudicationonthemeritsinĻspiteofthefactthattheDepartmentofVeteransAffairs(VA)hastwicelosttheclaimsfolder,onceĻin1988andagain,aftertheappealwasdocketedattheBoard,in1991.Record(R.)at34.InĻdecidingthattheappellanthadnotpresentednewandmaterialevidence,theBVAreliedupontheĻ"reconstructed"claimsfolder,whichcontainedonlythefollowing:ThelastpageofitsSeptemberĻā
    
 ā1966decision;itsMarch1980reconsiderationdecision;atranscriptofanOctober1990BVAŠ   	 _(Æ#4   Šhearing;and"miscellaneousotherdocuments".×  J         ×Ż
 B  #Ć ŻņņŚ    Ś1Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ     Ż×
   
 ×R.at4.ThedecisioncontainsnostatementastoŠ   	 °      Šā
    
 āhowcompleteorfragmentarytheBoardbelievedthat"reconstructed"foldertobe,nordoestheĻrecordonappeal(ROA)containanyindicationthatwhentheclaimsfolderwaslostforthesecondĻtime,aftertheappealwasdocketed,theBoardnotifiedtheappellantthatVAhadlosttheclaimsĻfolder,inquiredastoherabilitytoassistinitsreconstruction,orinformedherthatitwouldbeĻproceedingtoadjudicateherclaimonthemeritsonthebasisofanincompleterecord.Ģą     ąRatherthanexaminingthefaciallyapparentinfirmityoftheprocessaccordedtheappellantĻinherappealbeforetheBoardtodetermineifitinvolvedadueprocessorotherlegalviolation,theĻmajorityinterpretstwoofthisCourt'sprioropinionsasprovidingtheimprimaturof"regularity"toĻtheBoard'sdecision.ThemajoritytherebybegsthequestionofwhethertheappellantwasaffordedĻareviewbytheBVAthatsatisfiedconstitutionalandotherlegalrequirementsandwhether,infact,ĻshehadsubmittednewandmaterialevidencetoreopenastoherclaimforserviceconnectionfortheĻcauseofherhusband'sdeath.Themajority'srelianceonņņDolanv.Brownóó,9Vet.App.358,362Š   	 Ü,   Š(1996),andņņO'Harev.Derwinskióó,1Vet.App.365,367(1991),ismisplacedandfailstoaddressŠ   	 5   ŠadequatelytheseriousnessofthelossoftheclaimsfolderwhilethecasewasonappealtotheBVAĻandoftheBVA'smakingadecisiononafragmentaryrecordwithoutprovidingtheappellantfurtherĻopportunitytosupplement,ortoassistinreconstructionof,therecord.JustastheBoardcannotrelyĻtoanappellant'sdetrimentuponevidencethatithasgenerated,withoutprovidingtheappellantĻwithnoticeofitsintentiontoreplyonthatevidenceandanopportunitytorespondtoit,ņņseeThurberŠ   	 ņB$   Šv.Brownóó,5Vet.App.119,126(1993),neither,itseemstome,shouldtheBoardbepermittedtorelyŠ   	 K&   Štotheappellant'sdetrimentuponthenonexistenceofevidencethatithaslost,withoutprovidingĻtheappellantwithnoticeofthelossoftheevidenceandanopportunitytocorrectthatlossandĻrespondtoit.Ģą     ąInņņDolanóó,theCourt,inrefusingtolookbehindthesurfaceofa41yearoldVAregionalŠ   	 Æ#’.   Šoffice(RO)decision,notedthepresumption("absentclearevidencetothecontrary")thatpublicŠ   	 %X 0   Šofficershave"properlydischargedtheirofficialduties."ņņDolanóó,9Vet.App.at362(citingņņUnitedŠ   	 °      ŠStatesv.ChemicalFoundation,Inc.óó,271U.S.1,1415(1926)).TotheextentthatthemajorityŠ   	 	Y   ŠwishestolooktoņņDolanóóforapresumptionofregularitythatprohibitsitfrominquiring,absentclearŠ   	 b²   Ševidencetothecontrary,intothefactualdeterminationsofthe1980BVAdecision,IbelieveitsĻapplicationofthatdecisionisappropriate.That1980BVAdecisionisfinal,andtheCourtpossessesĻnojurisdictiontoreviewit.×  M         ×Ż
 B  #Ć ŻņņŚ    Ś2Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ     Ż×
   
 ×However,Ithinkitavastleapfromthattosay,asthemajorityappearsŠ   	 m½
   Štointhiscase,thatthepresumptionofregularitythattheCourtisgivingtothe1980BVAdecision'sĻrecitationofthe"facts"justifiesthe1995BVAdecision'srelianceonthosefactsforanythingotherĻthananexplanationofthestatusoftheevidenceņņņņin1980óóóó.InņņDolanóó,theCourtusedthepresumptionŠ   	 xČ
   ŠofregularitytoavoiddiggingintothevalidityofanROdecisionoverwhichithadnojurisdiction;Ļintheopinioninthiscase,theCourtusesthepresumptionofregularitytoavoidreviewingtheĻvalidityofaBVAdecisionthatņņņņisóóóóbeforetheCourt.Thepointinthiscaseisnotwhetherthe1980Š   	 Ó   ŠBVAdecisionwasdefectivebutwhethertheBVAdecisiononappealisdefective.AlthoughtheĻ1980BVAdecision'sdiscussionoftheevidencethenbeforeit,inthecontextofapresumptionofĻregularityandintheabsenceoftheactualpre1980evidence,mayassisttheBoardindeterminingĻwhetherevidencepresentedsincethenis"new",×  O     n  ×Ż
 B  #Ć ŻņņŚ    Ś3Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ     Ż×
   
 ×itcansupplynoreckoningofņņņņtheextentóóóóoftheŠ   	 ē7   Ševidencepresentedafter1980,whichispreciselytheissueinquestion.ThepresumptionofĻregularitythattheCourtattachestothe1980BoarddecisionappearstoslideintoapresumptionthatĻtheBoardin1995hadalltheevidencebeforeitnecessaryforadeterminationofwhethernewandĻmaterialevidencehadbeenpresented.SuchapresumptionaccordsregularitytotheactionsofĻofficialsoftheverygovernmentthattwicehaslosttheentireclaimsfile.InaratherKafkaesqueĻā
    
 āparody,thatirregularitylosingthefileiswhathasbecomethe"regular"inthiscase.Š   	 ż M*   Šą     ąThemajority'srelianceuponņņO'HareóóissimilarlymisplacedbecausethemajoritytreatsthisŠ   	 °      Šā
    
 āasa"missingrecords"casecallingonlyfor"heightenedconsideration".ņņAnteóóat__,slipop.at5.Š   	 	Y   ŠņņO'Hareóófoundthat,whentherewereņņņņmissingservicemedicalrecordsóóóó(SMRs),theBoardhadaŠ   	 b²   ŠheightenedreasonsorbasesdutytoexplainhowitreacheditsdecisionintheabsenceofthoseĻrecords.ņņSeeO'Hare,supraóó;38U.S.C.šš7104(d).Icannotextrapolatefromthatholding,asdoesŠ   	 
d   Šthemajority,thattheBVAcanexcuseitslossofaclaimsfolder,andadecisionmadeuponaĻ"reconstructed"recordofuncertaincompleteness,byexplainingverycarefullyhowitusedwhatĻremainedoftherecordtomakeitsdecision.Thisisnotacaseinvolvingsomemissingrecords.ItĻisacasewheretheentirerecordhasbeenlostņņņņandóóóówaslostbytheotherpartytothelitigation.Š   	 xČ
   ŠMoreover,thesituationinņņO'HareóóarosewherebothpartieswereawarethatSMRsweremissingandŠ   	 Ń!   Šhadhadtheopportunitytodeveloptherecord.Inthiscase,itisnotplainthattheappellantwaseverĻeveninformed,priortotheBoard'sdecisionhereonappeal,thattheclaimsfolderhadbeenlostaĻsecondtime.Ģą     ąThus,ņņDolanóóandņņO'Hareóódonotleadtothemajority'sconclusion.Moreover,inlightofŠ   	 5   ŠņņMoore(Howard)v.Derwinskióó,1Vet.App.401,406(1991),whichfoundaheighteneddutytoassistŠ   	 Ž   Šunder38U.S.C.šš5107(a)inamissingrecordscase,andņņDixonv.Derwinskióó,3Vet.App.261,263Š   	 ē7   Š(1992),whichheldthatVAbreachedthedutytoassistwhereitfailedtoinformtheclaimantoftheĻneedtosubmit"alternativeformsofevidence"whereSMRswerelost,andbasedontheanalysisinĻpartII.A.,below,regardingtheapplicableburdenofproofastothewellgroundednessoftheclaim,ĻIconcludethattheBVAhadanaffirmativeduty,uponitslossoftheclaimsfolder,eithertostayĻproceedingsandadvisetheappellantoftheneedtoassistinreconstructionoftheclaimsfolderorĻtoremandtotheROforsuchreconstruction.ņņCf.Thurber,supraóó.Š   	 ż M*   Šą     ąFurthermore,themajorityopinionmisstatesthedueprocessconcernimplicatedinacaseĻsuchasthiswhenitconcludesthat"theBVA'sinabilitytoobtainthemissingdocumentsisnotcauseĻforremandthat,inalllikelihood,wouldbefutileanyway."ņņAnteóóat__,slipop.at5.ThequestionŠ   	 %X 0   Šisnotandcannotbewhether,onthefragmentaryrecordremainingaftertheBVAlosttheclaimsĻfolder,itappearsthattheappellantwouldprevailuponremand;thequestioniswhethertheCourt,ĻandtheBoardearlier,placesproperreliancewithoutdoingmoreuponthefragmentaryrecordĻā
    
 ābeforeittoconcludethattheappellanthadnot,asamatteroflaw,presentednewandmaterialŠ   	 l*¼%8   Ševidence.Theweightofavailablelegalauthority×  Q         ×Ż
 B  #Ć ŻņņŚ    Ś4Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ     Ż×
   
 ×stronglysuggeststhatthesimplefactthattheŠ   	 °      Šā
    
 āBVAproceededwithanadjudicationonanincompleterecordņņņņwithoutadvisingtheappellantorŠ   	 	Y   ŠgivingherachancetosupplementtherecordóóóócreatesaproceduraldeficiencynomatterhowŠ   	 b²   ŠcarefullytheBoardexplainshowitarrivedatitsdecisionbasedonwhatithadbeforeit.Thus,IĻwouldremand,pursuanttoaheightenedsection5107(a)dutytoassist,fortheBVAtoallowtheĻappellanttosupplyanymaterialshecantoassistinreconstructingtheclaimsfolderand,becauseĻitisnotclearfromtheROAwhatroletheROplayedinreconstructingtheclaimsfolderthesecondĻtime,fortheBVAtorequiretheROtoassistinreconstruction.ĢĢą@    bb6 ģ ąņņII.MeritsoftheCaseóóŠ   	 Ń!   Šą@    ŃŃ8 ģ ąņņņņA.BurdenofProofóóóóŠ   	 *z   Šą     ąThefinalitydoctrinesetforthin38U.S.C.šš7104(b)states:ĢÓ         Óą8     ą[W]henaclaimisdisallowedbytheBoard,theclaimmaynotthereafterbereopenedĻandallowedandaclaimbaseduponthesamefactualbasismaynotbeconsidered.Š    Š Š   ŠĢÓ         ÓInshort,aclaimantcannothopeforanadjudicationandawardbasedņņņņsolelyóóóóuponevidencealreadyŠ   	 Ž   Šdeterminedtobeinsufficient.Butthisisnottosaythatthefinalitydoctrineofsection7104(b)Ļrequiresthattheappellantpresentnewandmaterialevidence,forthepurposesof38U.S.C.šš5108,ĻinorderfortheBoardtoproceedtoconsidertheclaimandtakestepstodeveloptheclaimfurtherĻiftheBoarddecidesthattheclaimanthassubmittedsufficientevidencetowellgroundtheclaimĻalthough,ofcourse,section5108ņņņņrequiresóóóóreadjudicationwherenewandmaterialevidenceisŠ   	 K%   Špresented("theSecretaryshallreopen...").ņņSeeIveyv.Derwinskióó,2Vet.App.320,32223(1992);Š   	 ¤ō'   ŠņņWhite(Frank)v.Derwinskióó,1Vet.App.519,521(1991);ņņIveyóó,2Vet.App.at32729(Steinberg,J.,Š   	 ż M)   Šconcurring)(distinguishingsection7104(b)'spreclusionastoaclaimbeing"reopenedņņņņandóóóóallowed",Š   	 °      ŠinthecaseofafinalBoarddecision,from38U.S.C.šš7105(c)'spreclusionastoaclaimbeingĻ"reopenedņņņņoróóóóallowed",inthecaseofafinalROdecision)(emphasisadded)).NewandmaterialŠ   	 b²   Ševidenceisnotrequiredfor"consideration"andfurtherdevelopmentalone,astowellgroundedĻclaims,aslongas"somenewevidence"ispresentedthatwouldchange"thefactualbasis"forĻconsiderationoftheclaim.ņņIbid.óóŠ   	 m½
   Šą     ąUnderthisconstructionofsection7104(b),althoughthisisaclaimtoreopen,ņņņņonlyóóóóthewellŠ   	 Ę   Šgroundednesstest,andnotthenewandmaterialevidencetest,shouldbeapplicableindeterminingĻtheapplicabilityofVA'sdutytoassisttheappellant.ThisisespeciallysobecausethereisnofairĻwaytolookattheevidenceforpurposesofdeterminingwhether"new"evidencehasbeenpresentedĻwhenwedonotknowifwehaveitall,letaloneallthe"old"evidence.BecausetheROAisbereftĻofboththeevidenceprecedingandsubsequenttothelastBoarddecision,section7104(b)cannotĻprecludeconsiderationandfurtherdevelopment,giventhatitisnotpossibletomakearationalĻfindingthattheclaimantisaskingthattheclaimbeconsideredontheņņņņsameóóóófactualbasisastheŠ   	 5   ŠBoard's1980denial.Ģą     ąThestandardforwhatisawellgroundedclaimunder38U.S.C.šš5107(a)istheevidenceĻthatwouldbe"sufficienttojustifyabeliefbyafairandimpartialindividualthattheclaim"isĻ"plausible...orcapableofsubstantiation."ņņMurphyv.Derwinskióó,1Vet.App.78,81(1990).Š   	 é"   ŠSurely,afairandimpartialindividualassessingthewellgroundednessoftheappellant'sclaimwouldĻsetthewellgroundednessthresholdverylowandconcludethattheclaimisplausibleinviewoftheĻuniquecircumstancesherepresent.ņņSeeWoodsonv.Brownóó,ņņóó87F.3d1304,1307(Fed.Cir.1996)Š   	 ¤ō(   Š(withholdingjudgmenton"whateffect,ifany,thelossofaveteran'srecordsduetonofaultoftheĻveteran...hasonthatveteran'sburdenofproofunder[38U.S.C.]šš5107(a)whenthelostrecordsĻmaybenecessarytoestablisheligibilityforbenefits"),ņņaffirminginpartanddismissinginpartóó,Š   	 Æ#’.   Š8Vet.App.353(1995);ņņRussov.Brownóó,9Vet.App.46,50(1996)(implicitlypresumingthatclaimŠ   	 %X 0   Šiswellgrounded,andproceedingtoadjudicationonmerits,whereSMRswerelostand38U.S.C.Ļšš1154(b)applied).Ģą@    kk4 ģ ąņņņņB.38U.S.C.šš5103(a)DutyóóóóŠ   	 )c$6   Šą     ąIalsobelievethatthemajorityopinionarticulatesthe38U.S.C.šš5103(a)dutytoonarrowlyĻinthiscasewhenitconcludesthattheson'stestimony"istooattenuatedtoshowavailabilityofŠ   	 Å+':   Šmedicalrecordssufficienttotriggerthesection5103(a)duty."ņņAnteóóat__,slipop.at7.IfindnoŠ   	 °      ŠsuchexistingmedicalrecordrequirementinCourtprecedent,andthisissurelytheworstcaseĻimaginableinwhichtocreateone.ņņSeeRobinettev.Brownóó,8Vet.App.69,80(1995)(onthefactsŠ   	 b²   Šofthecase,Secretary"wasonnoticethatrelevantevidenceņņņņmayóóóóhaveexisted,ņņņņorcouldhavebeenŠ   	 »   Šobtainedóóóó...")(emphasisadded);ņņcf.Meyerv.Brownóó,9Vet.App.425,42930(1996)(wherenoŠ   	 
d   ŠparticularstatementfromthedoctorwasexpresslyidentifiedandstatementsbymotherandsiblingsĻregardingveteran'streatmentbydeceasedfatherinvokedsection5103(a)dutytonotify).Ģą     ąItisarguablethatunderņņRobinetteóóandņņMeyeróótheson'sremarksinthiscasemighthaveŠ   	 o	   Šsufficedtoinvokeasection5103(a)dutyifthiswerearegularcase.However,thisisaspecialcase,Ļinsofarastheentireclaimsfolderhasbeenlost.Insuchacase,VAshouldhaveaparticulardutyĻtoinformtheappellantoftheneedtosupplementthemissingrecordandthatthemissingrecordalsoĻcausesherapplicationtobe"incomplete".Thatis,insuchacaseIwouldfindaheightenedĻņņRobinetteóódutyundersection5103(a)forthesamereasontheCourtfoundinņņO'HareóóandņņMooreóóŠ   	 Ü,   Šheightenedreasonsorbasesanddutytoassistrequirementsinalostrecordscasethatis,thatthisĻCourtisunnecessarilyhamperedinitsreviewoftheBVAdecisionabsentadditional,heightenedĻeffortbyVAtosupplyamorecompleterecord.Ģą@    ÅÅ1 ģ ąņņņņC.38C.F.R.šš3.103(c)(2)DutyóóóóŠ   	 @    Šą     ąThemajorityopinionalsoneglectstoexamineorcommentupontheviolationoftheĻregulatorydutyunder38C.F.R.šš3.103(c)(2)ofVAhearingofficersto"suggestthesubmissionofĻevidencewhichtheclaimantmayhaveoverlooked".EvenintheabsenceoftheextraordinaryĻcircumstancesevidencedinthiscasebythelostclaimsfile,itseemscleartomethattheĻšš3.103(c)(2)dutywasviolatedhereinsofarasthehearingofficerapparentlyfailedtoinformtheĻclaimantoftheneedtosubmitstatementsfromthedoctorsinquestion.ņņSeeDouglasv.Derwinskióó,Š   	 V"¦,   Š2Vet.App.103,110(1992);ņņreaff'donthisground,Douglasv.Derwinskióó,2Vet.App.435,44041Š   	 Æ#’.   Š(1992)(enbanc).ĢĢą@    ff: ģ ąņņIII.ConclusionóóŠ   	 ŗ'
#4   Šą     ąThiscasepresentsaprimeexampleofasituationwhereacourtneedstobeespeciallyĻmindfulofthepotentialconsequencesofitsaction.TheapplicationofaruleofdeferencebasedonĻapresumptionofregularityinalostfilecasebesidesbeinganoxymoronofsortsmayleadtoŠ   	 Å+':   ŠlesscareinVAššshandlingofrecords.Certainly,theobversewouldbetrue;arefusaltoaccordsuchĻdeferencewouldbelikelytoproducegreaterVAcare.Itmightalsobeaskedwhether,intheĻconsiderationofalostfilecasesuchasthis,theCourtshouldtakejudicialnoticeofthehighlyĻpublicizedsituation,whichhasbeenthesubjectofmanypleadings(byappellantsandtheSecretary)ĻinothercasesinthisCourt,whereBVAemployeeswillfullyanddeliberatelydestroyedlargeĻquantitiesofclaimsfilerecords.ņņSee,e.g.,McDonaldv.Brownóó,U.S.Vet.App.No.9512(orderŠ   	 m½
   ŠMay30,1996)(CourtgrantsMay29,1996,jointmotionforremandincasewhereappellant'sĻrecordsmayhavebeentamperedwithbyformerBVAemployees);ņņseealsoóóņņBVAChairman'sŠ   	 o	   ŠFiscalYear1995Ann.Rep.óó15(relatingcaseoftwoBVAattorneyswhoremovedessentialŠ   	 xČ
   Šdocumentsfromappellants'claimsfilesinordertoforceremandtoRO).NotwithstandingtheĻunfortunatesuggestioninthemajorityopinion,mypositioninthiscaseisnotbasedonmistrustofĻtheSecretaryortheBVAChairman;IhaveeveryconfidencethatbothhavetakenstepstoavoidanyĻrepetitionofrecorddestruction.ńBń×  T         ×ńBńń Bń×  G         ×ńBńŻ
 B  #Ć ŻņņŚ    Ś5Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ     Ż×
   
 ×However,Icannotbeunmindful,asthemajorityappearstowantŠ   	 Ü,   Štobe,ofthepotentialimpactoftheholdinginthiscase,orpretendthatwhathashappenedintherealĻworldofBVAclaimsadjudicationdidnothappenandcouldnothappenagain.Ģą     ąThisisadmittedlyanunusualcase.ThatisallthemorereasonwhytheCourtshouldavoidĻappearingtosanctionthedisappearanceofvitalrecordssolelywithinthecontroloftheotherparty.ĻInstead,ateachpointwhereitcouldavoidsanctioningsucharesult,themajorityignoresprecedentĻorstretchesitinawaythatresultsinafindingadversetotheappellant.Ģą     ąForthereasonssetforthinthisdissentingopinion,Iamunabletoconcurinthemajority'sĻanalysisordispositionofthiscase,andIrespectfullydissent.Ō#   X· X XF X]öC  # Ōń?ńń @ńń?ńŌ        ’’   ŌŌ      ŌŌ     Ōń?ńń@ńń <ńĢń<ńń=ńń=ńń ;ńŃ     ŃÓ=         XŠ  X       d   XŠ  X       d= ÓŃ7         X X       dš    X X       dš 7 ŃŃ    g ŃŌ ]  X5K X X X„ Ōń:ńĢń:ńą     ąSTEINBERG,ņņJudgeóó,dissenting:Thisisacasewherethemajority'sapplicationofjudicialŠ   	 i   Šdoctrine,withoutregardtothecontextofthatapplication,producesaresultcontrarytolawandtoĻthedictatesofcommonsenseandfairness.Becauseno"presumptionofregularity"canmaketheĻpatentlyirregularregularorthefaciallyunjustjust,andforthereasonsthatfollow,IdissentfromĻthemajority'sdispositionandthepathbywhichitisreached.Inmyview,theBoardofVeterans'ĻAppeals(BVAorBoard)hadanaffirmativedutytotakefurtherstepstotrytoreconstructtheĻappellant'smissingclaimsfile.ĢĢą@    g
g
% ģ ąņņI.LossandReconstructionoftheAppellant'sClaimsFileóóŠ   	 į1&   Šą     ąThemajority'sopinionconcludesthatthereisnoconstitutionalorotherlegalinfirmityintheĻMarch27,1995,Boarddecisioninthiscase,whichproceededtoanadjudicationonthemeritsinĻspiteofthefactthattheDepartmentofVeteransAffairs(VA)hastwicelosttheappellant'sclaimsĻfolder,oncein1988andagain,aftertheappealwasdocketedattheBoard,in1991.Record(R.)atĻ34.Indecidingthattheappellanthadnotpresentednewandmaterialevidence,theBVAreliedĻuponthe"reconstructed"claimsfolder,whichcontainedonlythefollowing:ThelastpageofitsĻSeptember1966decision;itsMarch1980reconsiderationdecision;atranscriptofanOctober1990ĻBVAhearing;and"miscellaneousotherdocuments".×  a         ×Ż
 B  #Ć ŻņņŚ    Ś1Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ     Ż×
   
 ×R.at4.ThedecisioncontainsnostatementŠ    ©)ł$6    ŠastohowcompleteorfragmentarytheBoardbelievedthat"reconstructed"foldertobe,nordoestheĻrecordonappeal(ROA)containanyindicationthatwhentheclaimsfolderwaslostforthesecondĻtime,aftertheappealwasdocketed,theBoardnotifiedtheappellantthatVAhadlosttheclaimsĻfolder,inquiredastoherabilitytoassistinitsreconstruction,orinformedherthatitwouldbeĻproceedingtoadjudicateherclaimonthemeritsonthebasisofanincompleterecord.Ģą     ąRatherthanexaminingthefaciallyapparentinfirmityoftheprocessaccordedtheappellantĻinherappealbeforetheBoardtodetermineifitinvolvedadueprocessorotherlegalviolation,theĻmajorityinterpretstwoofthisCourt'sprioropinionsasprovidingtheimprimaturof"regularity"toĻtheBoard'sdecision.ThemajoritytherebybegsthequestionofwhethertheappellantwasaffordedĻareviewbytheBVAthatsatisfiedconstitutionalandotherlegalrequirementsandwhether,infact,ĻshehadsubmittednewandmaterialevidencetoreopenastoherclaimforserviceconnectionfortheĻcauseofherhusband'sdeath.Themajority'srelianceonņņDolanv.Brownóó,9Vet.App.358,362Š   	 Ó   Š(1996),andņņO'Harev.Derwinskióó,1Vet.App.365,367(1991),ismisplacedandfailstoaddressŠ   	 Ü,   Šadequatelytheseriousnessofthelossoftheveteran'sclaimsfolderonappealandtheBVA'smakingĻadecisiononafragmentaryrecordwithoutprovidingtheappellantfurtheropportunitytoĻsupplement,ortoassistinreconstructionof,therecord.JustastheBoardcannotrelytoanĻappellant'sdetrimentuponevidencethatishasgeneratedwithoutprovidingtheappellantwithnoticeĻofitsintentiontoreplyonthatevidenceandanopportunitytorespondtoit,ņņseeThurberv.Brownóó,Š   	 é"   Š5Vet.App.119,126(1993),neither,itseemstome,shouldtheBoardbepermittedtorelytotheĻappellant'sdetrimentupontheirrelevanceofevidencethatithaslostwithoutprovidingtheappellantĻwithnoticeofthelossoftheevidenceandanopportunitytocorrectthatlossandrespondtoit.Ģą     ąInņņDolanóó,theCourt,inrefusingtolookbehindthesurfaceofa41yearoldVAregionalŠ   	 ż M*   Šoffice(RO)decision,notedthepresumption("absentclearevidencetothecontrary")thatpublicĻofficershave"properlydischargedtheirofficialduties."ņņDolanóó9Vet.App.at362(citingņņUnitedŠ   	 Æ#’.   ŠStatesv.ChemicalFoundation,Inc.óó,271U.S.1,1415(1926)).TotheextentthatthemajorityŠ   	 %X 0   ŠwishestolooktoņņDolanóóforapresumptionofregularitythatprohibitsitfrominquiring,absentclearŠ   	 a&±!2   Ševidencetothecontrary,intothefactualdeterminationsofthe1980BVAdecision,IbelieveitsŠ   	 ŗ'
#4   Šapplicationofthatdecisionisappropriate.That1980BVAdecisionisfinal,andtheCourtpossessesĻnojurisdictiontoreviewit.×  b         ×Ż
 B  #Ć ŻņņŚ    Ś2Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ     Ż×
   
 ×However,Ithinkitavastleapfromthattosay,asthemajorityappearsŠ   	 	Y   Štointhiscase,thatthepresumptionofregularitythattheCourtisgivingtothe1980BVAdecision'sĻrecitationofthe"facts"justifiesthe1995BVAdecision'srelianceonthosefactsforanythingotherĻthananexplanationofthestatusoftheevidenceņņņņin1980óóóó.InņņDolanóó,theCourtusedthepresumptionŠ   	 
d   ŠofregularitytoavoiddiggingintothevalidityofanROdecisionoverwhichithadnojurisdiction;Ļintheopinioninthiscase,theCourtusesthepresumptionofregularitytoavoidreviewingtheĻvalidityofaBVAdecisionthatņņņņisóóóóbeforetheCourt.Thepointinthiscaseisnotwhetherthe1980Š   	 o	   ŠBVAdecisionwasdefectivebutwhethertheBVAdecisiononappealisdefective.AlthoughtheĻ1980BVAdecision'sdiscussionoftheevidencethenbeforeit,inthecontextofapresumptionofĻregularityandintheabsenceoftheactualpre1980evidence,mayassisttheBoardindeterminingĻwhethersincesubmittedevidenceis"new",×  c     n  ×Ż
 B  #Ć ŻņņŚ    Ś3Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ     Ż×
   
 ×itcansupplynoreckoningofņņņņtheextentóóóóoftheevidenceŠ   	 Ó   Šsubmittedafter1980,whichispreciselytheissueinquestion.ThepresumptionofregularitythatĻtheCourtattachestothe1980BoarddecisionappearstoslideintoapresumptionthattheBoardinĻ1995hadalltheevidencebeforeitnecessaryforadeterminationofwhethernewandmaterialĻevidencehadbeenpresented.SuchapresumptionaccordsregularitytotheactionsofofficialsofĻtheverygovernmentthattwicehaslosttheappellant'sentireclaimsfile.InaratherKafkaesqueĻparody,thatirregularitylosingthefileiswhathasbecomethe"regular"inthiscase.Ģą     ąThemajority'srelianceuponņņO'HareóóissimilarlymisplacedbecausethemajoritytreatsthisŠ   	 ņB$   Šasa"missingrecords"casecallingonlyfor"heightenedconsideration".ņņAnteóóat__,slipop.at5.Š   	 K&   ŠņņO'Hareóófoundthat,whentherewereņņņņmissingservicemedicalrecordsóóóó(SMRs),theBoardhadaŠ   	 ¤ō(   ŠheightenedreasonsorbasesdutytoexplainhowitreacheditsdecisionintheabsenceofthoseĻrecords.ņņSeeO'Hare,supraóó;38U.S.C.šš7104(d).Icannotextrapolatefromthatholding,asdoesŠ   	 V"¦,   Šthemajority,thattheBVAcanexcuseitslossofaclaimsfolder,andadecisionmadeuponaĻ"reconstructed"recordofuncertaincompleteness,byexplainingverycarefullyhowitusedwhatĻremainedoftherecordtomakeitsdecision.Thisisnotacaseinvolvingsomemissingrecords.ItĻisacasewheretheentirerecordhasbeenlostņņņņandóóóówaslostbytheotherpartytothelitigation.Š   	 »   ŠMoreover,thesituationinņņO'HareóóarosewherebothpartieswereawarethatSMRsweremissingandŠ   	 
d   Šhadhadtheopportunitytodeveloptherecord.Inthiscase,itisnotplainthattheappellantwaseverĻeveninformed,priortotheBoard'sdecisionhereonappeal,thattheclaimsfolderhadbeenlostaĻsecondtime.Ģą     ąThus,ņņDolanóóandņņO'Hareóódonotleadtothemajority'sconclusion.Moreover,inlightofŠ   	 xČ
   ŠņņMoore(Howard)v.Derwinskióó,1Vet.App.401,406(1991),whichfoundaheighteneddutytoassistŠ   	 Ń!   Šunder38U.S.C.šš5107(a)inamissingrecordscase,andņņDixonv.Derwinskióó,3Vet.App.261,263Š   	 *z   Š(1992),whichheldthatVAbreachedthedutytoassistwhereitfailedtoinformtheclaimantoftheĻneedtosubmit"alternativeformsofevidence"whereSMRswerelost,andbasedontheanalysisinĻpartII.A.,below,regardingtheapplicableburdenofproofastothewellgroundednessoftheclaim,ĻIconcludethattheBVAhadanaffirmativeduty,uponitslossoftheclaimsfolder,eithertostayĻproceedingsandadvisetheappellantoftheneedtoassistinreconstructionoftheclaimsfolderorĻtoremandtotheROforsuchreconstruction.ņņCf.Thurber,supraóó.Š   	 @    Šą     ąFurthermore,themajorityopinionmisstatesthedueprocessconcernimplicatedinacaseĻsuchasthiswhenitconcludesthat"theBVA'sinabilitytoobtainthemissingdocumentsisnotcauseĻforremandthat,inalllikelihood,wouldbefutileanyway."ņņAnteóóat__,slipop.at5.ThequestionŠ   	 K&   Šisnotandcannotbewhether,onthefragmentaryrecordremainingaftertheBVAlosttheclaimsĻfolder,itappearsthattheappellantwouldprevailuponremand;thequestioniswhethertheCourt,ĻandtheBoardearlier,placesproperreliancewithoutdoingmoreuponthefragmentaryrecordĻbeforeittoconcludethattheappellanthadnot,asamatteroflaw,presentednewandmaterialĻevidence.Theweightofavailablelegalauthority×  d         ×Ż
 B  #Ć ŻņņŚ    Ś4Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ     Ż×
   
 ×stronglysuggeststhatthesimplefactthattheŠ   	 %X 0   ŠBVAproceededwithanadjudicationonanincompleterecordņņņņwithoutadvisingtheappellantorŠ   	 °      ŠgivingherachancetosupplementtherecordóóóócreatesaproceduraldeficiencynomatterhowŠ   	 	Y   ŠcarefullytheBoardexplainshowitarrivedatitsdecisionbasedonwhatithadbeforeit.Thus,IĻwouldremand,pursuanttoaheightenedsection5107(a)dutytoassist,fortheBVAtoallowtheĻappellanttosupplyanymaterialshecantoassistinreconstructingtheclaimsfolderand,becauseĻitisnotclearfromtheROAwhatroletheROplayedinreconstructingtheclaimsfolderthesecondĻtime,fortheBVAtorequiretheROtoassistinreconstruction.ĢĢą@    bb6 ģ ąņņII.MeritsoftheCaseóóŠ   	 xČ
   Šą@    ŃŃ8 ģ ąņņņņA.BurdenofProofóóóóŠ   	 Ń!   Šą     ąThefinalitydoctrinesetforthin38U.S.C.šš7104(b)states:ĢÓ         Óą8     ą[W]henaclaimisdisallowedbytheBoard,theclaimmaynotthereafterbereopenedĻandallowedandaclaimbaseduponthesamefactualbasismaynotbeconsidered.Š    Š Š   ŠĢÓ         ÓInshort,aclaimantcannothopeforanadjudicationandawardbasedņņņņsolelyóóóóuponevidencealreadyŠ   	 5   Šdeterminedtobeinsufficient.Butthisisnottosaythatthefinalitydoctrineofsection7104(b)Ļrequiresthattheappellantpresentnewandmaterialevidence,forthepurposesof38U.S.C.šš5108,ĻinorderfortheBoardtoproceedtoconsidertheclaimandtakestepstodeveloptheclaimfurtherĻiftheBoarddecidesthattheclaimanthassubmittedsufficientevidencetowellgroundtheclaimĻalthough,ofcourse,section5108ņņņņrequiresóóóóreadjudicationwherenewandmaterialevidenceisŠ   	 ņB#   Špresented("theSecretaryshallreopen...").ņņSeeIveyv.Derwinskióó,2Vet.App.320,32223(1992);Š   	 K%   ŠņņWhite(Frank)v.Derwinskióó,1Vet.App.519,521(1991);ņņIveyóó,2Vet.App.at32729(Steinberg,J.,Š   	 ¤ō'   Šconcurring)(distinguishingsection7104(b)'spreclusionastoaclaimbeing"reopenedņņņņandóóóóallowed",Š   	 ż M)   ŠinthecaseofafinalBoarddecision,from38U.S.C.šš7105(c)'spreclusionastoaclaimbeingĻ"reopenedņņņņoróóóóallowed",inthecaseofafinalROdecision)(emphasisadded)).NewandmaterialŠ   	 Æ#’-   Ševidenceisnotrequiredfor"consideration"andfurtherdevelopmentalone,astowellgroundedŠ   	 %X /   Šclaims,aslongas"somenewevidence"ispresentedthatwouldchange"thefactualbasis"forĻconsiderationoftheclaim.ņņIbid.óóŠ   	 	Y   Šą     ąUnderthisconstructionofsection7104(b),althoughthisisaclaimtoreopen,ņņņņonlyóóóóthewellŠ   	 b²   Šgroundednesstest,andnotthenewandmaterialevidencetest,shouldbeapplicableindeterminingĻtheapplicabilityofVA'sdutytoassisttheappellant.ThisisespeciallysobecausethereisnofairĻwaytolookattheevidenceforpurposesofdeterminingwhether"new"evidencehasbeenpresentedĻwhenwedonotknowifwehaveitall,letaloneallthe"old"evidence.BecausetheROAisbereftĻofboththeevidenceprecedingandsubsequenttothelastBoarddecision,section7104(b)cannotĻprecludeconsiderationandfurtherdevelopment,giventhatitisnotpossibletomakearationalĻfindingthattheclaimantisaskingthattheclaimbeconsideredontheņņsameóófactualbasisastheŠ   	 Ń!   ŠBoard's1980denial.Ģą     ąThestandardforwhatisawellgroundedclaimunder38U.S.C.šš5107(a)istheevidenceĻthatwouldbe"sufficienttojustifyabeliefbyafairandimpartialindividualthattheclaim"isĻ"plausible...orcapableofsubstantiation."ņņMurphyv.Derwinskióó,1Vet.App.78,81(1990).Š   	 5   ŠSurely,afairandimpartialindividualassessingthewellgroundednessoftheappellant'sclaimwouldĻsetthewellgroundednessthresholdverylowandconcludethattheclaimisplausibleinviewoftheĻuniquecircumstancesherepresent.ņņSeeWoodsonv.Brownóó,8Vet.App.353(1995),ņņaff'dinpartandŠ   	 @    Šdismissedinpart,óó87F.3d1304,1307(Fed.Cir.1996)(withholdingjudgmenton"whateffect,ifŠ   	 é"   Šany,thelossofaveteran'srecordsduetonofaultoftheveteran...hasonthatveteran'sburdenofĻproofunder[38U.S.C.]šš5107(a)whenthelostrecordsmaybenecessarytoestablisheligibilityforĻbenefits.");ņņRussov.Brownóó,9Vet.App.46,50(1996)(implicitlypresumingthatclaimiswellŠ   	 ¤ō(   Šgrounded,andproceedingtoadjudicationonmerits,whereSMRswerelostand38U.S.C.šš1154(b)Ļapplied).ĢŠ	   	 Æ#’.   Šą@    kk4 ģ ąņņņņB.38U.S.C.šš5103(a)DutyóóóóŠ   	 °      Šą     ąIalsobelievethatthemajorityopinionarticulatesthe38U.S.C.šš5103(a)dutytoonarrowlyĻinthiscasewhenitconcludesthattheson'stestimony"istooattenuatedtoshowavailabilityofĻmedicalrecordssufficienttotriggerthesection5103(a)duty."ņņAnteóóat__,slipop.at7.IfindnoŠ   	 »   ŠsuchexistingmedicalrecordrequirementinCourtprecedent,andthisissurelytheworstcaseĻimaginableinwhichtocreateone.ņņSeeRobinettev.Brownóó,8Vet.App.69,80(1995)(onthefactsŠ   	 m½
   Šofthecase,Secretary"wasonnoticethatrelevantevidenceņņņņmayóóóóhaveexisted,ņņņņorcouldhavebeenŠ   	 Ę   Šobtainedóóóó...")(emphasisadded);ņņcf.Meyerv.Brownóó,9Vet.App.425,42930(1996)(wherenoŠ   	 o	   ŠparticularstatementfromthedoctorwasexpresslyidentifiedandstatementsbymotherandsiblingsĻregardingveteran'streatmentbydeceasedfatherinvokedsection5103(a)dutytonotify).Ģą     ąItisarguablethatunderņņRobinetteóóandņņMeyeróótheson'sremarksinthiscasemighthaveŠ   	 *z   Šsufficedtoinvokeasection5103(a)dutyifthiswerearegularcase.However,thisisaspecialcase,Ļinsofarastheentireclaimsfolderhasbeenlost.Insuchacase,VAshouldhaveaparticulardutyĻtoinformtheappellantoftheneedtosupplementthemissingrecordandthatthemissingrecordalsoĻcausesherapplicationtobe"incomplete".Thatis,insuchacaseIwouldfindaheightenedĻņņRobinetteóódutyundersection5103(a)forthesamereasontheCourtfoundinņņO'HareóóandņņMooreóóŠ   	 ē7   Šheightenedreasonsorbasesanddutytoassistrequirementsinalostrecordscasethatis,thatthisĻCourtisunnecessarilyhamperedinitsreviewoftheBVAdecisionabsentadditional,heightenedĻeffortbyVAtosupplyamorecompleterecord.Ģą@    ÅÅ1 ģ ąņņņņC.38C.F.R.šš3.103(c)(2)DutyóóóóŠ   	 K&   Šą     ąThemajorityopinionalsoneglectstoexamineorcommentupontheviolationoftheĻregulatorydutyunder38C.F.R.šš3.103(c)(2)ofVAhearingofficersto"suggestthesubmissionofĻevidencewhichtheclaimantmayhaveoverlooked".EvenintheabsenceoftheextraordinaryĻcircumstancesevidencedinthiscasebythelostclaimsfile,itseemscleartomethattheĻšš3.103(c)(2)dutywasviolatedhereinsofarasthehearingofficerapparentlyfailedtoinformtheĻclaimantoftheneedtosubmitstatementsfromthedoctorsinquestion.ņņSeeDouglasv.Derwinskióó,Š   	 a&±!2   Š2Vet.App.103,110(1992);ņņreaff'donthisground,Douglasv.Derwinskióó,2Vet.App.435,44041Š   	 ŗ'
#4   Š(1992)(enbanc).ĢĢŠ	   	 Å+':   Šą@    ff: ģ ąņņIII.ConclusionóóŠ   	 °      Šą     ąThiscasepresentsaprimeexampleofasituationwhereacourtneedstobeespeciallyĻmindfulofthepotentialconsequencesofitsaction.TheapplicationofaruleofdeferencebasedonĻapresumptionofregularityinalostfilecasebesidesbeinganoxymoronofsortsmayleadtoĻlesscareinVAššshandlingofrecords.Certainly,theobversewouldbetrue;arefusaltoaccordsuchĻdeferencewouldbelikelytoproducegreaterVAcare.Itmightalsobeaskedwhether,intheĻconsiderationofalostfilecasesuchasthis,theCourtshouldtakejudicialnoticeofthehighlyĻpublicizedsituation,whichhasbeenthesubjectofmanypleadings(byappellantsandtheSecretary)ĻinothercasesinthisCourt,whereBVAemployeeswillfullyanddeliberatelydestroyedlargeĻquantitiesofclaimsfilerecords.ņņSee,e.g.,McDonaldv.Brownóó,No.9572(May30,1996)(CourtŠ   	 Ń!   Šgrantsjointmotionforremandincasewhereappellant'srecordsmayhavebeentamperedwithbyĻformerBVAemployees);ņņseealsoóóņņBVAChairman'sFiscalYear1995Ann.Rep.óó15(relatingcaseŠ   	 Ó   ŠoftwoBVAattorneyswhoremovedessentialdocumentsfromappellants'claimsfilesinordertoĻforceremandtoRO).Notwithstandingtheunfortunatesuggestioninthemajorityopinion,myĻpositioninthiscaseisnotbasedonmistrustoftheSecretaryortheBVAChairman;IhaveeveryĻconfidencethatbothhavetakenstepstoavoidanyrepetitionofrecorddestruction.×  e         ×Ż
 B  #Ć ŻņņŚ    Ś5Ś
   
 ŚóóŻ     Ż×
   
 ×However,IŠ   	 ē7   Šcannotbeunmindful,asthemajorityappearstowanttobe,ofthepotentialimpactoftheholdingĻinthiscase,orpretendthatwhathashappenedintherealworldofBVAclaimsadjudicationdidnotĻhappenandcouldnothappenagain.Ģą     ąThisisadmittedlyanunusualcase.ThatisallthemorereasonwhytheCourtshouldavoidĻappearingtosanctionthedisappearanceofvitalrecordssolelywithinthecontroloftheotherparty.Š   	 ¤ō(   ŠInstead,ateachpointwhereitcouldavoidsanctioningsucharesult,themajorityignoresprecedentĻorstretchesitinawaythatresultsinafindingadversetotheappellant.Ģą     ąForthereasonssetforthinthisopinion,Iamunabletoconcurinthemajority'sanalysisorĻŌ% ^    Ōdispositionofthiscase,andIrespectfullydissent.Ō#   X„ X X] X5K¦G  # Ōń;ń