v. Shinseki (Robinson II), 557 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed.Cir.2009); see also Brannon v. West, 12 Vet.App. 32, 35 (1998) (concluding that the Board must “adjudicate all issues reasonably raised by a liberal reading of the appellant’s substantive appeal including all documents and oral testimony in the record prior to the Board’s decision”). To the extent that the Secretary contends that, to preserve the § 3.156(c) issue for judicial review, Mr. Emerson was required to articulate as fully developed an argument before the Board as he now presents, such contention is not consistent with case law. See Robinson I, 21 Vet.App. at 553 (“As a nonadversarial adjudicator, the Board’s obligation to analyze claims goes beyond the arguments explicitly made.”); see also Robinson II, 557 F.3d at 1361 (<HOLDING>). 2. Text, Structure, and Applicability of 38
holding that the secretary must sympathetically read prior pro se filings in determining if cue exists in an earlier decision holding claims must be raised on direct appeal or waived holding that courts must construe pro se filings liberally holding that in direct appeals all filings must be read ⅛ a liberal manner whether or not the veteran is represented holding that statutes must be read so as to give effect to all statutory language