Entitlement to payment or reimbursement of expenses related to non-Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical treatment incurred on March 14 and 15, 2015, is remanded.

Citation Nr: 26001432 Decision Date: 01/30/26 Archive Date: 01/30/26 DOCKET NO. 16-15 393 DATE: January 30, 2026 REMANDED Entitlement to payment or reimbursement of expenses related to non-Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical treatment incurred on March 14 and 15, 2015, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from December 1968 to February 1973. This matter returns to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) after multiple remands. This matter was initially remanded in September 2021 because medical records pertaining to the episode of care in question were not of record, nor was a Medicare Explanation of Benefits (EOB) confirming the amount that remained owing. It was remanded once again in August 2023 because the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) had not complied with the August 2021 remand directives when it failed to sufficiently attempt to obtain the required documents. Unfortunately, this matter must be remanded once again so that the AOJ can issue a Supplementary Statement of the Case (SSOC) as is required after each remand under the legacy appeals system. Indeed, a veteran is entitled to an SSOC that informs him of any material changes in, or additions to, information included in any prior Statement of the Case (SOC). 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.31, 19.37; Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999) (holding that the filing of a notice of disagreement initiates the appeal process and the failure of the AOJ to issue an SOC or SSOC is a procedural defect requiring remand). Accordingly, even though this will, regrettably, further delay an appellate decision on this matter, a remand for an SSOC is necessary. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Provide the Veteran and his representative with an SSOC regarding this issue and allow them an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, this issue should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. W. Daknis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Freda J. F. Smith, Counsel The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.