The appellant sought to reopen previously denied claims for service connection for residuals of frostbite and arthritis of multiple joints. The Court applied the governing reopening standard under 38 U.S.C. § 5108 and held that the additional lay statements, testimony, and medical records were either cumulative, not competent to establish diagnosis or nexus, or not material because they did not show the claimed conditions in service or, for arthritis, within the presumptive period. The Court therefore affirmed the Board’s denial of reopening.

The opinion also addressed issues that had been raised in the record and briefs. The Court held that the Board should have addressed the reasonably raised issue of entitlement to an extra-schedular rating for individual unemployability. It further concluded that the appellant had not properly raised a CUE claim before the Board, and that the duty to assist had been adequately discharged where the claimant did not identify with specificity the records he alleged were missing. The case is useful both for its explanation of the reopening standard and for its reminder that the Board must address benefits reasonably raised by the record.

To reopen a final claim, evidence must be new, material, and competent, meaning it is not merely cumulative and presents a reasonable possibility of changing the outcome when considered with the record as a whole.

Pollard is a reopening case that also reinforces two advocacy points: lay repetition and unsupported diagnosis testimony will not reopen a claim, and the Board must address TDIU when unemployability is reasonably raised by the record.

The case is a clear example of how the Court evaluates whether evidence is truly material for reopening purposes. It also provides early authority for the principle that the Board must address theories of entitlement reasonably raised by the evidence, including unemployability, even when the veteran does not perfectly label the claim.

Failing to recognize that cumulative or noncompetent evidence cannot reopen a claim, or failing to address a reasonably raised TDIU theory.

A veteran submits additional statements, old treatment records, and hearing testimony to reopen a previously denied arthritis claim. If the submissions do not connect the disability to service or the presumptive period, the claim remains closed; but if the record also shows the veteran cannot work, the Board must consider TDIU even if the veteran did not file a formal TDIU application.

Use this case to argue against reopening where the new submissions are repetitive or lack nexus value, and to press the Board to adjudicate unemployability when the record contains evidence of inability to maintain substantially gainful employment.