The appellant sought to reopen a previously denied claim for a fungal infection of the feet. The Board had denied the original claim and later found that a fellow serviceman’s statement, submitted to support reopening, was new but not material. The Court affirmed, applying the then-controlling Colvin standard and holding that the statement, even if fully credible, did not have sufficient weight or significance to create a reasonable possibility of changing the outcome when considered with the negative service and separation examinations and other record evidence. The case illustrates the limited evidentiary force of remote lay recollections in reopening claims when they do not meaningfully address the basis of the prior denial.

Evidence submitted to reopen a final claim must be both new and material; material evidence is that which, when viewed with the record as a whole, raises a reasonable possibility of changing the prior outcome.

A veteran reopening a final denial must submit evidence that directly fills the evidentiary gap from the original decision. A credible lay statement alone may be insufficient if it does not outweigh contrary contemporaneous medical records.

Kates is a useful reopening case for explaining the evidentiary threshold under the pre-1998 materiality standard. It shows that the Court will uphold a Board finding of no reopening where the new evidence is merely a retrospective lay account that does not reasonably undermine the prior medical record.

Failure to recognize that evidence is merely cumulative and does not satisfy the materiality threshold for reopening.

A veteran previously denied service connection submits a buddy statement years later describing symptoms in service, but the service records and separation examination are negative and the statement does not address the missing nexus element. Under Kates, the claim may still fail to reopen.

Use Kates when arguing that late, retrospective lay evidence is insufficient to reopen a claim absent probative value on the specific reason for the prior denial. It is especially helpful when opposing reopening based on statements that are credible but not outcome-determinative.