The veteran sought to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Court explained that final rating decisions could be reopened only if the claimant first presented new and material evidence under 38 U.S.C. § 5108, and that the Board was supposed to apply the two-step analysis described in Manio. The Board had stated that the claim was reopened and then discussed the merits without expressly deciding the threshold question, which was error. But the Court concluded that the error was harmless because the evidence the veteran submitted was cumulative or otherwise insufficient to satisfy the reopening standard. The Court further noted that the veteran’s allegations about an inadequate separation examination and secondary relationship to a jaw injury did not establish a new factual basis showing that hearing loss began in service. The decision therefore affirmed the Board’s denial and reinforced that a claimant who does not clear the reopening threshold cannot prevail.

A previously denied VA claim may be reopened only if the claimant first submits new and material evidence; if no such evidence is presented, the Board’s failure to articulate the reopening analysis is harmless because the claim remains barred from reopening.

This case is a threshold-reopening decision: without genuinely new and material evidence, arguments about merits or Board phrasing will not overcome finality. Advocates should build the record around evidence that is both noncumulative and outcome-changing.

Sanchez is a useful authority for finality and reopening practice. It confirms that the Board must apply the reopening framework correctly, but also that procedural missteps will not matter if the claimant cannot meet the basic burden under § 5108.

Treating cumulative evidence as new and material

A veteran tries to reopen a denied service-connection claim by resubmitting old treatment records and restating the same nexus theory. Under Sanchez, that evidence does not reopen the claim, even if the Board discusses the merits.

Use this case to argue harmless error when the claimant never submitted new and material evidence, or to emphasize that reopening requires truly additional evidence rather than repeated assertions.

Manio v. Derwinski, Colvin v. Derwinski, Thompson v. Derwinski