unusual, we start with a brief background of the underlying action for which this EAJA award is sought. On November 1, 2011, the Board issued a decision that (1) denied Mr. Garsow’s claim for disability compensation for bilateral hearing loss, (2) remanded his claim for benefits for an acquired psychiatric disorder and tinnitus, and (3) granted his claim for bilateral peripheral neuropathy of the left and right lower extremities (neuropa-thy). On January 9, 2012, under docket number 12-0103, Mr. Garsow timely submitted a Notice of Appeal (NOA) from the November 2011 decision. By operation of law, however, our jurisdiction over the appeal was limited to the Board’s 2011 denial of Mr. Garsow’s claim for benefits for bilateral hearing loss. See Hibbard v. West, 13 Vet.App. 546, 548 (2000) (<HOLDING>). On January 23, 2012, apparently without
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 taxpayer could not have presented substantive due process claim to the board of assessment review because of the limited jurisdiction of that board holding that the courts jurisdiction is limited to the appeal of final board decisions that are adverse to the claimant holding that this courts review of board decisions is limited to final orders or final decisions holding appeal of termination is limited to information that is part of the record