419, 422 n. 1 (2006) (accepting the Board’s finding that the appellant did not receive an RO decision despite the lack of any analysis or evidence rebutting the presumption of regularity). The unjustified remand in this case not only “perpetuates the hamster-wheel reputation of veterans law,” Coburn v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 427, 434 (2006) (Lance, J., dissenting), but also risks depriving the appellant of the benefits that he should be awarded based on the factual finding already made by the Board. Even if the Board reaffirms its finding on remand and grants the appellant’s CUE motion, the appellant will have been denied his rightful benefits for many additional months, if not years, without any remedy for this delay. See Matthews v. Nicholson, 456 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed.Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, I would reverse the decision of
holding that no interest is paid on benefits awarded based on a finding of cue holding that a finding of no plain error on direct appeal precludes a finding of prejudice under strickland holding that in the absence of statutory authorization interest cannot be awarded on costs holding that prejudgment interest is based on the amount of the judgment not the total amount of damages awarded by the jury because nonsettling defendants have no control over settlement negotiations and should not be forced to pay prejudgment interest on settling defendants parts of a damages award recognizing that cue may be based on a showing that there was no evidence before the adjudicator that could have supported a denial of the claim on the merits that is that all of the evidence militated in support of the claim