b) cases in which the original jurisdiction does not provide form to appeal. A written notification of a plaintiff or his representative, expressing dissatisfaction or disagreement with a court decision of the home jurisdiction and the desire to challenge the result, constitutes a declaration of disagreement which relates to a right to benefits, in all cases where the original judicial authority does not present any form intended to summon an appeal. Communication on the disagreement must be in a form that can reasonably be construed as a nullity with that provision and as a desire to review the appeal. Where the original jurisdiction has indicated that judicial decisions have been made simultaneously on several issues, specific findings with which the applicant disagrees should be established. NOD is defined as “a written communication of an applicant or his or her representative expressing dissatisfaction or displeasure with a judicial decision of the Agency or the jurisdiction of origin and the desire to challenge the result.” 38 C.F.R. No 20.201 (2012). (5) Alternative form or other communication. The introduction of an alternative form or other extended notification will not extend the time it takes to file a notice of disagreement in accordance with the dense19.52 A. or to delay tolls or other purposes. In particular, the time frame for submitting the appropriate form does not lengthen, prolong or delay the time it takes to submit the appropriate form, does not extend or delay the deadline, including a form to challenge another benefit. We don`t link these example nods at the moment… the VA is changing the shape of noD (we believe) and we don`t want bad information circulating there. (c) contested claims at the same time.
The provisions of point (b) of this section apply to appeals made in simultaneous claims under Rules 500 and 501 (No. 20,500 and 20.501 of this chapter), that the decision of the original court has been subject to a standardized form. Historically, there was no VA form for a NOD and the Court applied a liberal reading to the complainants` correspondence. As such, there was no specific language as long as it expressed disagreement and intended to seek an appeal review.
