10 Vet.App. 330, 334 (1997) (vacating a Board decision issued after a veteran’s death and dismissing appeal). Because we find that there is no proper claim in this case, we will not address Mr. Rudd’s .other contentions of error. In his motion for a panel decision, Mr. Rudd asserts for the first time that certain statements made by him or his representative constitute valid Notices of Disagreement as to the March 1995 and September 1997 regional office decisions and that equitable tolling should apply to excuse any late filing of the Notices of Disagreement. However, he did not raise those arguments before the Board, and the Board did not address those issues. Accordingly, we will not, in the first instance, decide such issues. See McPhail v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 30, 33-34 (2005) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 168 Fed.Appx. 952 (Fed.Cir.2006)
holding that the supreme court will not issue advisory opinion on issue not before the court holding that mental incapacity is an extraordinary circumstance that may warrant equitable tolling holding that the appellants assertions of clear and unmistakable error were no longer at issue and that the issue of equitable tolling of the period for filing a notice of disagreement based on mental incapacity was not properly before the court holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling holding that equitable tolling of the time to file a notice of appeal is not permitted