Citation Nr: 0424926 Decision Date: 09/09/04 Archive Date: 09/16/04 DOCKET NO. 99-08 202 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New York, New York THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 25, 1996, for a compensable rating for residuals of a right wrist fracture. 2. Propriety of the reduction in evaluation for residuals of a right wrist fracture from 30 percent to noncompensable. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Sean Kendall, Attorney-at-Law ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. N. Bland, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from August 1950 to June 1954. In a rating decision dated in August 1996, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New York, New York granted service connection for impairment of the right radius, evaluated as 10 percent. The grant of service connection and the 10 percent rating were made effective March 25, 1996. In October 1996, the veteran wrote that he was claiming entitlement to an increased rating for his service connected disabilities. Service connection was only in effect for impairment of the right radius. In a March 1997, rating decision the RO increased the rating for the right wrist disability to 30 percent effective November 5, 1996. In November 1997, the veteran signed a statement in which he asked for a "retro check back to April of 1955." It was argued that he had filed a claim for service connection about that time. In December 1997, the RO issued a rating decision establishing an effective date of June 10, 1954, for the grant of service connection for the right wrist disability described as status post fracture of the styloid process of the right major radius with moderate neuropathy of the median nerve. The disability was evaluated as noncompensable from June 10, 1954 to November 4, 1996. The veteran expressed disagreement with the decision to assign an effective date of November 5, 1996 for a compensable evaluation. In February 1999, the RO issued a statement of the case as to the issues of entitlement to an earlier effective date for a compensable evaluation for the residuals of fracture of the styloid process of the right wrist; and entitlement to a higher evaluation for residuals of the fracture. In February 1999, the RO issued a rating decision proposing to reduce the evaluation for the right wrist disability to noncompensable. In a rating decision dated in May 1999, and issued on June 1, 1999, the RO reduced the evaluation for the right wrist disability from 30 percent to noncompensable, effective July 1, 1999. The veteran's representative submitted a notice of disagreement with this decision in June 1999. In January 2000, the RO issued a supplemental statement of the case in which it listed the issue as "evaluation of status post fracture of the right radius currently evaluated as 0 percent disabling." The supplemental statement of the case appears to have considered the propriety of the rating reduction. The Board notes that the substantive appeal referable to the rating reduction was not received until October 2001. Ordinarily, a substantive appeal must be received within 60 days of the statement of the case, or the remainder of the one-year period after notice of the action being appealed. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(3) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b) (2003). However, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that the Board may waive the timely filing of a substantive appeal, even if the veteran has not submitted a request for extension of the time period in which to file the substantive appeal. Beyrle v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 24, 28 (1996) (citing Rowell v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 9, 17 (1993)); but c.f. Roy v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 554, 556 (1993) (holding that an extension of time in which to file a substantive appeal could not be granted unless a request for extension was made in accordance with the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 20.303 (2003)). In accordance with the Court's holding in Beyrle, the Board waives the filing of a timely substantive appeal in this case because of potential confusion over what issues were being considered in the January 2000 supplemental statement of the case; and because the RO has certified the rating reduction as being on appeal. Although, in February 1999, the RO issued a statement of the case that included the issue of "evaluation of residuals of fracture of the styloid process of the right radius currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling." There is no evidence of a notice of disagreement as to this issue. In March 1999, the veteran submitted a VA Form 9 that could be construed as disagreeing with decisions made in the February 1999 statement of the case or February 1999 rating decision that considered the propriety of the current evaluation. The January 2001, supplemental statement of the case considered the propriety of the current evaluation, and can be seen as fulfilling the role of a statement of the case in response to the March 1999 notice of disagreement. However, the veteran did not submit a substantive appeal with regard to this issue, and it has not been certified as being on appeal. Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over this issue. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105. In June and November 2002, the Board undertook additional development of the claims on appeal. In September 2003 the Board remanded the veteran's appeal so that the RO could consider the evidence developed by the Board. Disabled American Veterans v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 327 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). By virtue of this decision, the 30 percent evaluation for residuals of a right wrist fracture is restored. The issue of entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 25, 1996, for a compensable rating for residuals of a right wrist fracture is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify you if further action is required on your part. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All information and evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's appeal have been obtained by the RO. 2. The medical evidence does not establish improvement in the service-connected residuals of a right wrist fracture. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for restoration of a 30 percent evaluation for residuals of a right wrist fracture have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105(e), 3.344. 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8615 (2003). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Initial Matters: Duty to Assist The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106- 475, 114 Stat. 2096 (2000), and the implementing regulations essentially eliminate the requirement that a claimant submit evidence of a well-grounded claim, and provide that VA will assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate a claim, but VA is not required to provide assistance to a claimant if there is no reasonable possibility that such assistance would aid in substantiating the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126 (West 2002). In addition, regulations implementing the VCAA are codified at 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326 (2003). The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has concluded that the VCAA was not applicable where further assistance would not aid the appellant in substantiating his claim. Wensch v. Principi, 15 Vet App 362 (2001); see 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(a)(2) (Secretary not required to provide assistance "if no reasonable possibility exists that such assistance would aid in substantiating the claim"). In view of the Board's favorable decision with regard to the claim decided in this appeal, further assistance is unnecessary to aid the appellant in substantiating his claim. Pertinent Criteria Disability evaluations are determined by applying a schedule of ratings (rating schedule) which represent, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (2003). Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Where there is a reasonable doubt as to the degree of disability, such doubt shall be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3. In the case of a disability rating in effect for less than five years, reexaminations disclosing improvement, physical or mental in the disability will warrant a reduction. 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(c). The residuals of the service connected right wrist fracture have been assigned a noncompensable disability rating under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8615. Diagnostic Code 8615 applies to neuritis of the median nerve. Neuritis is characterized by loss of reflexes, muscle atrophy, sensory disturbances, and constant pain, at times excruciating, and is rated on the scale provided for injury of the nerve involved, with a maximum equal to severe, incomplete, paralysis. 38 C.F.R. § 4.123. Incomplete, severe paralysis warrants assignment of a 50 percent evaluation for the major extremity and a 40 percent evaluation for the minor extremity. Incomplete, moderate paralysis warrants assignment of a 30 percent rating for a major extremity and a 20 percent evaluation for a minor extremity; and incomplete mild paralysis warrants assignment of a 10 percent evaluation for either upper extremity. Analysis The veteran's service medical records show that on X-ray examination in August 1952, the veteran was found to have a fracture through the base of the styloid process of the radius. There was slight separation at the fracture site. The fracture line also extended longitudinally in the distal end of the radius. Additional X-ray studies were made in September and October 1952. The last X-ray examination in October 1952 was interpreted as showing the fractured styloid process of the radius. There was reportedly no definite evidence of beginning union. The examination for service separation reported no pertinent abnormality. On VA examination in August 1996, the diagnoses were status post fracture of the styloid process of the right radius with wasting of the thenar area of the right thumb with post- traumatic arthritis of the right thumb and also nerve damage to the nerve supplying the right thumb from surgery performed on the right wrist in 1952. A contracture of the palmar fascia of the right hand was also noted. In November 1996, the RO received records from a chiropractor, Barry Bodenstein. An entry dated in July 1976 contained the following history: Auto accident 1954, frac skull-nose-jaw- right wrist twice-index finger, right hand-1962-pinky twice, right hand-1960's- right elbow 1948, bone chip removed, right elbow 1948. The veteran was noted to have an 80 percent loss of muscle at the web of the right hand. On VA examination in February 1997, it was reported that following the right wrist fracture in 1952, the veteran had undergone an open reduction. The reduction had not been satisfactory, and the veteran had undergone a second reduction during service. Following this procedure, he had begun to have wasting of the thenar area of the dorsal aspect of the thumb and first two fingers. It is unclear where the examiner obtained this history. The examiner further reported that the veteran currently worked as a mechanic and was having difficulty holding objects and doing the mechanical tasks. He complained of tingling and numbness of the thumb and first two fingers. On examination the veteran had marked wasting of the thenar space on the dorsum of the right hand. There was marked decrease in grasp strength. There was also decreased sensation to pinprick on the palmar surface of the thumb and first two fingers, and a positive Tinel's sign. The diagnosis was status post fracture, right wrist with nerve injury resulting in thenar atrophy and carpal tunnel syndrome with neuropathy of the thumb, index and middle finger. The RO granted the 30 percent evaluation on the basis of the February 1997, examination. In May 1998, the RO, noting the veteran's requested that it obtain a medical opinion in conjunction with this claim for an earlier effective date for the compensable evaluation, referred the claims folder to a VA medical center for review by an orthopedist and neurologist. In the request, the RO noted that the veteran's separation examination did not show any defects or abnormalities. In July 1998, Dr. Jeffery Fisher, Chief of Administrative Medicine at a VA medical center reported the results of a review of the claims folder. Dr. Fisher noted the X-ray examinations in August and September 1952, the separation examination, the chiropractor's report dated in July 1976, and the results of the VA examinations. He concluded that the fracture of the distal radius styloid process which occurred in the summer of 1952 healed without significant enough long-term effects as to be not documented in the separation examination two years later in June 1954. He also opined that a fracture of the distal radius would be very unlikely to produce an injury to the medial nerve. These facts suggested to Dr. Fisher that the observed disability involving the right hand was not the result of the fracture of the distal radius occurred during the service. Dr. Fisher further stated that it was possible that the dysfunction relative to the right hand might be the result of post- service trauma documented in a sketchy fashion in the chiropractic report. He noted that "better documentation of those injuries might provide...a nexus to the current condition." The RO issued a rating decision in February 1999 proposing to reduce the 30 percent rating for residuals of a right wrist fracture. The veteran was subsequently notified of this decision by letter that same month. In a rating decision, dated in May 1999, and issued in June 1999, the veteran's disability rating was reduced and he was notified the following month. In a March 1999 VA Form 9 (Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals), the veteran reported that the fractures listed by Dr. Fisher in July 1998, were not related to the auto accident of 1954. He stated that his wrist was broken a second time during service while he was in the hospital having the initial break treated because the original setting would have caused his wrist to be set improperly. He also reported that he was told to file for VA benefits at the time of his discharge, and he did. In March 1999, Dr. Bodenstein submitted a statement in which he wrote "on the case history card of the above patient the numerous fractures listed are not related to the auto accident of 1954." The veteran was afforded a VA neurologic examination in October 2002. The examiner, Dr. Bartol, noted that the veteran had a fracture of the right styloid process in Germany, on August 17, 1954, and again in 1962. On physical examination, loss of the thenar eminence on the first interosseous area was noted. The flexion was 30 degrees on the right and radial deviation was limited to 20 degrees. Finger abduction was within normal limits. Strength of the right hand was less than the left. The diagnosis was status post fracture of right style process while in service and minimal degenerative arthritis. Dr. Bartol noted that no X-rays were available for review. He noted that "physical examination is very minimal on this patient on the right hand." He also found that if any nerve had been involved it would have been the radial rather than the median, because the radial nerve affected the thumb, where the veteran had problems. He added that the veteran had recurrent fractures of the hand and that there were probably other fractures of the hands that had not been mentioned by the veteran. In November 2002, the Board requested that Dr. Bartol provide clarification. In a December 2002 addendum to the examination report, Dr. Bartol reported that he had reviewed the claims folder and concluded that it was highly unlikely that the veteran's median nerve damage was related to his service disability since the discharge physical was essentially negative. The veteran submitted an October 2002 statement from R. Baker, R.N. Nurse Baker reviewed the veteran's claims folder and concluded that Dr. Fisher's opinion was not a sufficient basis to reduce the disability rating. She noted that there was no documentation that Dr. Fisher performed a physical examination on the veteran to address his condition, instead he only addressed current assessments made by other practitioners, of which there was significant data to indicate that there was probability that the condition could be the long term result of the injury sustained while in service. She concluded, based on the available information and medical evaluations at hand, that the veteran's current condition is at least as likely as not to be attributed to the right wrist fracture sustained in 1952. The veteran submitted an independent medical evaluation from C. Bash, M.D., neuro-radiologist, dated in April 2003. Dr. Bash reviewed the veteran's service medical records, post service medical records, other medical opinions, and medical literature. In Dr. Bash's opinion, the veteran had a severe wrist injury in service with a fracture of his styloid process/distal radius and that this injury lead to degenerative arthritis and carpal tunnel syndrome in his right wrist which has resulted in his tingling, medial nerve damage (as far back as 1976), loss of use of the right thumb, contracture and thenar muscle atrophy. The rating reduction was premised largely on the findings on the medical records review in July 1998, that the veteran's current disability was not associated with the fracture documented in service. The opinions provided by a different VA examiner in October 2002 and December 2002 also appear to support the conclusion that the veteran's current disability was unrelated to the fracture in service. However, these opinions appear to rely on a significant amount of conjecture, and do not appear to have considered an entirely accurate history. For instance the July 1998 opinion considered only the August and September 1952 X-ray reports, and made no mention of the October 1952 X-ray examination. The latter X-ray showed that the fracture had not healed, and would seem to weigh against a finding that the veteran had no residual disability from the in-service fracture. The October 2002 examination report, incorrectly reports that the veteran's initial injury took place in 1954, and speculates, without any reported basis, that the veteran had additional fractures of the right hand that he had not reported. The December 2002 addendum incorrectly states that the February 1997 examination contained reports of significant post-service trauma to the right hand. The Board also notes that there has been no severance of service connection for the median nerve disability. See Baughman v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 563 (1991) (holding that once a disability is listed in a rating decision as service connected, service-connection remains in effect unless properly severed). The examinations since February 1997, have mainly focused on what aspect of the veteran's disability is service connected, and have not contained any very detailed reports as to the extent of the disability. They do not show improvement in the service connected right wrist disability. Therefore, the Board finds that restoration of the 30 percent evaluation is warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8615. ORDER The rating reduction was not proper, a 30 percent disability rating for residuals of a right wrist fracture is restored. REMAND The VCAA and its implementing regulations require VA to notify the claimant and the claimant's representative, if any, of any information, and evidence, that was not previously provided to VA, and is necessary to substantiate the claim. As part of that notice, VA is to specifically inform the claimant and the claimant's representative, if any, of which portion, if any, of the evidence is to be provided by the claimant and which part, if any, VA will attempt to obtain on behalf of the claimant. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a). VA has promulgated regulations implementing the statute, whereby it has undertaken to request that claimants submit relevant evidence in their possession. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) (2003). The Court has held that the notice requirement is not met unless VA can point to a specific document in the claims file. See Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 187 (2002). The veteran has not received this required notice for his claim of an effective date earlier than March 26, 1996, for a compensable rating for residuals of a right wrist fracture. The AMC or RO should provide the appellant with notice regarding the claims in accordance with 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b). Therefore under VA's statutory duties to notify and to assist, the Board determines that additional development is necessary before deciding this appeal and remands the case for the following action: 1. The AMC or RO should provide the veteran with notice regarding the claim for an effective date earlier than March 26, 1996, for a compensable rating for residuals of a right wrist fracture in accordance with 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b). 2. The AMC or RO should then re- adjudicate the claim, and, if it remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in order. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See The Veterans Benefits Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-183, § 707(a), (b), 117 Stat. 2651 (2003) (to be codified at 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112). _________________________________________________ Mark D. Hindin Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs YOUR RIGHTS TO APPEAL OUR DECISION The attached decision by the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) is the final decision for all issues addressed in the "Order" section of the decision. The Board may also choose to remand an issue or issues to the local VA office for additional development. If the Board did this in your case, then a "Remand" section follows the "Order." However, you cannot appeal an issue remanded to the local VA office because a remand is not a final decision. The advice below on how to appeal a claim applies only to issues that were allowed, denied, or dismissed in the "Order." If you are satisfied with the outcome of your appeal, you do not need to do anything. We will return your file to your local VA office to implement the BVA's decision. However, if you are not satisfied with the Board's decision on any or all of the issues allowed, denied, or dismissed, you have the following options, which are listed in no particular order of importance: ? Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) ? File with the Board a motion for reconsideration of this decision ? File with the Board a motion to vacate this decision ? File with the Board a motion for revision of this decision based on clear and unmistakable error. Although it would not affect this BVA decision, you may choose to also: ? Reopen your claim at the local VA office by submitting new and material evidence. There is no time limit for filing a motion for reconsideration, a motion to vacate, or a motion for revision based on clear and unmistakable error with the Board, or a claim to reopen at the local VA office. None of these things is mutually exclusive - you can do all five things at the same time if you wish. However, if you file a Notice of Appeal with the Court and a motion with the Board at the same time, this may delay your case because of jurisdictional conflicts. If you file a Notice of Appeal with the Court before you file a motion with the BVA, the BVA will not be able to consider your motion without the Court's permission. How long do I have to start my appeal to the Court? You have 120 days from the date this decision was mailed to you (as shown on the first page of this decision) to file a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. If you also want to file a motion for reconsideration or a motion to vacate, you will still have time to appeal to the Court. As long as you file your motion(s) with the Board within 120 days of the date this decision was mailed to you, you will then have another 120 days from the date the BVA decides the motion for reconsideration or the motion to vacate to appeal to the Court. You should know that even if you have a representative, as discussed below, it is your responsibility to make sure that your appeal to Court is filed on time. How do I appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims? Send your Notice of Appeal to the Court at: Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20004-2950 You can get information about the Notice of Appeal, the procedure for filing a Notice of Appeal, the filing fee (or a motion to waive the filing fee if payment would cause financial hardship), and other matters covered by the Court's rules directly from the Court. You can also get this information from the Court's web site on the Internet at www.vetapp.uscourts.gov, and you can download forms directly from that website. The Court's facsimile number is (202) 501-5848. To ensure full protection of your right of appeal to the Court, you must file your Notice of Appeal with the Court, not with the Board, or any other VA office. How do I file a motion for reconsideration? You can file a motion asking the BVA to reconsider any part of this decision by writing a letter to the BVA stating why you believe that the BVA committed an obvious error of fact or law in this decision, or stating that new and material military service records have been discovered that apply to your appeal. If the BVA has decided more than one issue, be sure to tell us which issue(s) you want reconsidered. Send your letter to: Director, Management and Administration (014) Board of Veterans' Appeals 810 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20420 VA FORM JUN 2003 (RS) 4597 Page 1 CONTINUED Remember, the Board places no time limit on filing a motion for reconsideration, and you can do this at any time. However, if you also plan to appeal this decision to the Court, you must file your motion within 120 days from the date of this decision. How do I file a motion to vacate? You can file a motion asking the BVA to vacate any part of this decision by writing a letter to the BVA stating why you believe you were denied due process of law during your appeal. For example, you were denied your right to representation through action or inaction by VA personnel, you were not provided a Statement of the Case or Supplemental Statement of the Case, or you did not get a personal hearing that you requested. You can also file a motion to vacate any part of this decision on the basis that the Board allowed benefits based on false or fraudulent evidence. Send this motion to the address above for the Director, Management and Administration, at the Board. Remember, the Board places no time limit on filing a motion to vacate, and you can do this at any time. However, if you also plan to appeal this decision to the Court, you must file your motion within 120 days from the date of this decision. How do I file a motion to revise the Board's decision on the basis of clear and unmistakable error? You can file a motion asking that the Board revise this decision if you believe that the decision is based on "clear and unmistakable error" (CUE). Send this motion to the address above for the Director, Management and Administration, at the Board. You should be careful when preparing such a motion because it must meet specific requirements, and the Board will not review a final decision on this basis more than once. You should carefully review the Board's Rules of Practice on CUE, 38 C.F.R. 20.1400 -- 20.1411, and seek help from a qualified representative before filing such a motion. See discussion on representation below. Remember, the Board places no time limit on filing a CUE review motion, and you can do this at any time. How do I reopen my claim? You can ask your local VA office to reopen your claim by simply sending them a statement indicating that you want to reopen your claim. However, to be successful in reopening your claim, you must submit new and material evidence to that office. See 38 C.F.R. 3.156(a). Can someone represent me in my appeal? Yes. You can always represent yourself in any claim before VA, including the BVA, but you can also appoint someone to represent you. An accredited representative of a recognized service organization may represent you free of charge. VA approves these organizations to help veterans, service members, and dependents prepare their claims and present them to VA. An accredited representative works for the service organization and knows how to prepare and present claims. You can find a listing of these organizations on the Internet at: www.va.gov/vso. You can also choose to be represented by a private attorney or by an "agent." (An agent is a person who is not a lawyer, but is specially accredited by VA.) If you want someone to represent you before the Court, rather than before VA, then you can get information on how to do so by writing directly to the Court. Upon request, the Court will provide you with a state-by-state listing of persons admitted to practice before the Court who have indicated their availability to represent appellants. This information is also provided on the Court's website at www.vetapp.uscourts.gov. Do I have to pay an attorney or agent to represent me? Except for a claim involving a home or small business VA loan under Chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code, attorneys or agents cannot charge you a fee or accept payment for services they provide before the date BVA makes a final decision on your appeal. If you hire an attorney or accredited agent within 1 year of a final BVA decision, then the attorney or agent is allowed to charge you a fee for representing you before VA in most situations. An attorney can also charge you for representing you before the Court. VA cannot pay fees of attorneys or agents. Fee for VA home and small business loan cases: An attorney or agent may charge you a reasonable fee for services involving a VA home loan or small business loan. For more information, read section 5904, title 38, United States Code. In all cases, a copy of any fee agreement between you and an attorney or accredited agent must be sent to: Office of the Senior Deputy Vice Chairman (012) Board of Veterans' Appeals 810 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20420 The Board may decide, on its own, to review a fee agreement for reasonableness, or you or your attorney or agent can file a motion asking the Board to do so. Send such a motion to the address above for the Office of the Senior Deputy Vice Chairman at the Board. VA FORM JUN 2003 (RS) 4597 Page 2