not diseases or injuries within the meaning of applicable legislation.’ ” (quoting 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(c))); Thibault v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 520, 522-23 (1993) (recognizing that spina bifida is a developmental disorder for which benefits may not be awarded). 4 . As a matter of course, the Secretary argues that the medical report was transmitted through CAPRI, and he attached to his brief a copy of the July 2005 VA examination report and an image from a computer screen that he argues proves that the report was transmitted in compliance with M21-1MR standards. Secretary’s Br. Appendix (App.) at 1. This document was generated by the Secretary during the pendency of Mr. Johnson’s claim and its validity is not questioned by Mr. Johnson. See MacWhorter v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 133, 136 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, it is deemed to have been before
holding that a partys failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waived the issue even though the party raised the issue in his reply brief holding that a court may consider a theory raised for the first time in a posttrial brief unless it is precluded by the pleadings or it prejudices the opposing party holding that a partys failure to respond to a legally plausible position in an opposing brief allowed the court to assume the point raised by the opposing brief holding argument not raised in opening brief but raised for the first time in reply brief was waived holding that an argument raised only in fact section of opening brief and in reply brief is not properly raised