context: The record reflects that he was advised of the evidence necessary to substantiate the next-higher disability ratings for each of these claims (see e.g., R. at 226-27, 457-69, 493-500, 503-04, 529-42). Accordingly, even if notice was otherwise inadequate, Mr. Coker was not prejudiced.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 19 Vet.App. 103, 121
citation_a.parenthetical: noting that notice errors can be shown to be nonprejudicial and citing several examples where notice error would not be prejudicial
citation_a.sentence: See Mayfield v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 103, 121 (2005) (noting that notice errors can be shown to be nonprejudicial and citing several examples where notice error would not be prejudicial), appeal docketed, No. 05-7157 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2005); see also 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(2); Conway v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (Court is required to “take due account of the rule of prejudicial error”); Marciniak v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 198, 201 (holding that, “[i]n the absence of, demonstrated prejudice,” remand is unnecessary); Barker v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 476, 481 (same).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 353 F.3d 1369, 1375
citation_b.parenthetical: Court is required to "take due account of the rule of prejudicial error"
citation_b.sentence: See Mayfield v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 103, 121 (2005) (noting that notice errors can be shown to be nonprejudicial and citing several examples where notice error would not be prejudicial), appeal docketed, No. 05-7157 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2005); see also 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(2); Conway v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (Court is required to “take due account of the rule of prejudicial error”); Marciniak v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 198, 201 (holding that, “[i]n the absence of, demonstrated prejudice,” remand is unnecessary); Barker v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 476, 481 (same).