In Bell v. Derwinski, the Court held that VA-generated documents were constructively “before the Secretary and the Board” within the meaning of section 7251(b). 2 Vet.App. 611, 612-13 (1992). Because the transmittal documents introduced by the Secretary here were clearly generated by VA during the pendency of Mr. Johnson’ cation of the presumption of regularity in this case, I note also that this is a question that the Court did not need to consider. The argument that an unsigned medical report is not sufficient for rating purposes was not presented to the Board. Consequently, although the Court may hear legal arguments that were not raised to the Board on a claim that is properly before the Court, it is not required to do so. See Maggitt v. West, 202 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed.Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Because the Board is in a better position to
holding that this court has discretion to either address or remand arguments presented to it in the first instance provided it otherwise has jurisdiction over the claim holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address in the first instance holding that this court must remand to the bia to allow it to address in the first instance an issue that it has not yet considered holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address it in the first instance holding that the court has discretion to hear or to remand legal arguments raised for the first time on appeal