that the appellant abandoned his appeal of the Board’s denial of his claim for an increased rating for onychomycosis of the left great toe. The appellant maintains that he has not abandoned his appeal of his left great toe claim and argues that a remand of that claim is also required. Although the appellant never specifically addressed the merits of the Board’s decision regarding his left great toe claim, because the appellant challenged the entire BVA decision on procedural grounds, the Court finds that his appeal of that issue has not been abandoned. Among other things, the VCAA eliminated the well-grounded-claim requirement and modified the Secretary’s duties to notify and assist claimants. See generally VCAA, §§ 3, 4, 7; see also Holliday v. Principi, 14 Vet.App. 280, 284-86 (2001) (<HOLDING>). In Karnas v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 308,
holding retroactive application holding that the act is retroactive holding that the act is not retroactive holding all sections of vcaa are retroactive holding inter alia that all provisions of vcaa were retroactively applicable to claims pending at time of enactment of vcaa