and a duty he has imposed on himself to mail the SOC to the claimant’s “latest address of record”, 38 C.F.R. § 19.30; see Sehafrath, supra. Third, Santoro was decided in the context of the pro-claimant nature of VA’s administrative claims adjudication, and any extension of the holding in Santoro to limit VA’s statutory obligations in forwarding an SOC to a claimant would be at odds with the nature of such adjudication. See Jaguay v. Principi, 304 F.3d 1276, 1288 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc) (noting that “veteran-friendly nature of the veterans’ benefit system counsels us to construe the diligence requirement as it applies to behavior during the non-adversarial stage of a claim for benefits in favor of the veteran”); see also Santana-Venegas v. Principi 314 F.3d 1293, 1298 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Fourth, unlike the ZIP Code error in Santoro,
recognizing that the veterans benefit system is uniquely proclaimant holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits holding courts must balance the benefits of class adjudication against its costs holding that the interpretation of a veterans filings is a factual inquiry recognizing nonadversarial and proclaimant character of veterans benefits adjudication