## Facts

- Merritt I. Anderson served in the U.S. Army from 1960 to 1962 and later filed multiple VA disability claims.
- In 1997, VA denied service connection for disabilities asserted as secondary to in-service tobacco use.
- At a later hearing, Anderson testified that his conditions were related not only to smoking but also to in-service chemical exposure and military diet; he did not submit a written Notice of Disagreement (NOD) identifying disagreement with the 1997 denial.
- Separately, Anderson sought an increased rating for service-connected hearing loss; VA granted an increase and assigned an effective date.
- Anderson sent two letters to VA expressing dissatisfaction with the assigned effective date and questioning why an earlier effective date was not awarded.
- The Board of Veterans’ Appeals found no valid NOD as to (1) the 1997 tobacco-related denial and (2) the effective date for the hearing-loss increase.
- Anderson appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Anderson’s hearing testimony and related statements regarding alternative causes of disability constituted a valid, timely NOD to the 1997 denial of tobacco-related service connection.
2. Whether Anderson’s letters disputing the effective date for the hearing-loss increase constituted a valid, timely NOD as to the effective-date element.
3. How strictly VA must apply the regulatory NOD requirements while construing a veteran’s written submissions.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the Board’s determination that Anderson did not file a valid NOD regarding the 1997 tobacco-related denial.
- The court held the Board erred in finding no valid NOD as to the effective date for the increased hearing-loss rating.
- The court ordered further proceedings on the earlier-effective-date dispute for hearing loss consistent with its NOD analysis.

## Legal Principles

- A NOD must be a timely written communication that expresses disagreement with a specific adjudicative determination and indicates an intent to contest the result.
- Oral hearing testimony, standing alone, does not satisfy the regulatory “written” requirement for a NOD.
- A claimant need not use technical language; written correspondence that reasonably identifies the contested element (including an effective date) and conveys dissatisfaction may constitute a NOD.
- Liberal construction of veterans’ submissions does not eliminate jurisdictional prerequisites for initiating an appeal, including timely submission of a qualifying written NOD.

## Conclusion

The court drew a firm distinction between oral testimony and written correspondence for NOD purposes: Anderson’s hearing testimony did not initiate an appeal of the 1997 tobacco-related denial, but his letters disputing the hearing-loss effective date were sufficient to trigger appellate review of that effective-date determination.


Anderson v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 371 (2004)