With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was enacted. See Bernklau, 291 F.3d at 803-06. The Board decision on appeal in the present case was issued on July 10, 2000, months before the November 2000 enactment of the VCAA. The Court concludes, therefore, that a remand for the Board to consider the matters on appeal in light of the VCAA sections codified at 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, and 5103A is not required. See Bernklau and Dyment, both supra. The remaining sections of the VCAA are not implicated in this appeal. In particular, the appeal does not raise issues regarding well groundedness or the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. See, e.g., 38 U.S.C. § 5107; see generally Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 143, 148-49 (2001) (Court found that VCAA did not change benefit of the doubt doctrine); Luyster v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 186 (2000) (<HOLDING>). With respect to the veteran’s motion for

A: recognizing that vcaa requires remand for readjudication if claim had been denied as not well grounded
B: recognizing that nurses statements regarding nexus were sufficient to make a claim well grounded
C: recognizing that only a claimant is entitled to the secretarys assistance in the development of the facts pertinent to the claim the benefit of the doubt and the determination whether the claim is well grounded
D: holding that once secretary determined that claim was well grounded it was improper for this court to reconsider matter
A.