finding, based on the affidavits, that the VA had a regular practice of providing notice of VA examinations. Cf. Routen v. West, 142 F.3d 1434, 1440 (Fed.Cir. 1998) (citing Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 301.02[1], at 301-07 (2d ed.1997); McCormick on Evidence § 342, at 450 (John W. Strong ed., 4th ed. 1992)) (explaining that "predicate evidence” must be established before a presumption is triggered). 10 . Although the dissent is concerned that reversal in this case could "set a standard” requiring repeated remands to the Board for factual finding, Dissenting Op. at 580-81, this opinion only requires that the Veterans Court follow the law confining its jurisdiction. Past decisions of this court have required the same. See, e.g., Hensley v. West, 212 F.3d 1255, 1263 (Fed.Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). 11 . Having granted Mr. Kyhn's requested
holding that a board decision is required to vest the court of veterans appeals with jurisdiction over a claimants appeal holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings holding the veterans court lacked jurisdiction to engage in fact finding in the first instance and explaining that remand to the board was required if there was insufficient factual development of the record holding preponderance of the evidence must be against a claim before the claim can be denied where factual record is insufficient remand required holding that this court must remand to the bia to allow it to address in the first instance an issue that it has not yet considered