claim, those documents were indeed “before the Board” and may be considered by the Court. See 38 U.S.C. § 7252(b); Bell, 2 Vet.App. at 613. Having found that the Secretary’s documents are properly before the Court, the next task is to determine what those documents actually establish. Although the transmittal documents alone may be insufficient to establish that the examination report was properly transmitted, Mr. Johnson does not contest the validity of the Secretary’s proof. Therefore, I believe that the Secretary’s unchallenged assertion that the July 2005 VA examination report was transmitted through the Compensation and Pension Record Interchange is sufficient to find that the report was signed in accordance with the M21-1MR. See MacWhorter v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 133, 136 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Finally, having stated my position on the
holding argument not raised in opening brief but raised for the first time in reply brief was waived holding that a partys failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waived the issue even though the party raised the issue in his reply brief holding that a court may consider a theory raised for the first time in a posttrial brief unless it is precluded by the pleadings or it prejudices the opposing party holding that an argument raised only in fact section of opening brief and in reply brief is not properly raised holding that a partys failure to respond to a legally plausible position in an opposing brief allowed the court to assume the point raised by the opposing brief