RO had erred in failing to read the veteran’s disability claim sympathetically to include a TDIU claim, a CUE claim would not be the proper path for correcting that error because the RO had not specifically addressed the TDIU claim and it was still pending before the RO awaiting adjudication. Id. at 1281. We explicitly rejected the government’s contention that the implied TDIU claim was pending and unadjudicated. Id. Relying on Roberson, 251 F.3d at 1383-84, we held that where an RO renders a decision on a veteran’s claim for benefits but fails to address one of the claims, that decision is final as to all claims; the RO’s failure to address the implied claim “is properly challenged through a CUE motion,” not a direct appeal. Andrews, 421 F.3d at 1281; see also Cook, 318 F.3d at 1339 (<HOLDING>). Thus under the rule articulated in Andrews,
holding that the statutory scheme provides only two exceptions to the rule of finality of va decisions a cue claim and a claim to reopen based on new and material evidence holding that cue review applies only to prior final decisions of agencies of original jurisdiction ros and not to prior decisions of the board holding that cue motion is not claim for benefits and that vcaa definition of claimant cannot encompass person seeking revision of final decision based on cue holding that once a regional office decision is final a claimant may only attempt to overcome the finality of that decision in one of two ways a request for revision of the decision based on clear and unmistakable error or a claim to reopen based upon new and material evidence holding that there was no new and material evidence to reopen claim where newly presented evidence was not accompanied by any medical evidence indicating a nexus to service