claim for benefits can be resolved by later adjudication of an identical claim or a related claim because the later decision provides sufficient notice to the claimant that the pending claim has been finally resolved. One such circumstance is illustrated by our decision in Adams. The veteran in that case filed two claims closely associated in substance and time, but the VA denied only one of the claims explicitly. Adams, 568 F.3d at 963-64. Under the “implicit denial rule,” the second claim was also deemed denied because the VA’s decision gave the veteran reasonable notice that related claims were being denied. Id.; see also Munro v. Shinseki, 2010 WL 3064301, at *3-5 (Fed.Cir. Aug.6, 2010) (discussing “implicit denial” cases); Deshotel v. Nicholson, 457 F.3d 1258, 1261 (Fed.Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). In Williams, we applied a variation of the
holding that an employees claim against plan administrator for denied benefits is preempted holding that it is not fundamentally unfair for court to condition its granting of permission to enter plea upon condition that defendant admit he acted in concert with two codefendants who were under indictment for the same crimes holding that due process entitled indigent defendant to psychiatrist to present insanity defense and crossexamine state psychiatrists because of the tremendous reliance jurors place on psychiatric testimony where there is often no single accurate psychiatric conclusion on legal insanity holding that receiving advice or treatment during the exclusionary period for a condition which proves to be the same condition the claimant seeks benefits for qualifies as a preexisting condition regardless of whether there was an accurate diagnosis holding that decision granting service connection for head trauma implicitly denied simultaneous claim for psychiatric condition