Single Judge application; DeLisio, 25 Vet.App. at 53 (quoting Clemons, 23 Vet.App. at 5); Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet.App. 1, 5 (2009);

Single Judge:

the Clemons Court limited its holding to circumstances in which there was no prior final denial of  benefits based on the same diagnosis, Clemons, 23 Vet.App. at 8 (“[W]hen no previous and final … decision exists,…any jurisdictional constraints with regard to the scope of the claim are absent.”).

Single Judge:

As the court explained in Clemons, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Boggs does not stand for the proposition that each separate diagnosis is always a separate claim. Clemons, 23 Vet.App.at 8-9.Instead,the proper scope of a claim must be determined by the lay veteran’s intent. Id. at 5

Single Judge:

Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet.App. 1, 5 (2009)(holding that an initial claim for service connection must be “considered a claim for any …disability that may be reasonably encompassed” by the claim))

Single Judge:

A claim for service connection may be expanded beyond a veteran’s lay description of a disability to include any disability “that may reasonably be encompassed by several factors including: the claimant’s description of the claim; the symptoms the claimant describes; and the information the claimant submits or that the Secretary obtains in support of the claim.” Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009)(per curiam order)

Single Judge:

in the context of VA’s uniquely pro-claimant and nonadversarial claims system, the Board cannot ignore an obvious potential path to benefits when carrying out its duty to sympathetically read a claim and to investigate possible causes that may be unknown