I think people handle this issue in various ways.  I tend to prefer opening a new decision to record the reopening.  Then you can properly record the hearing on reopening and preserve the previous decision.  But there is no link generated within the application to the original decision, so I tend to indicate in the procedural issues of the reopening that it is a reopening and identify the number of the previous related decision.  And to complete the link, open the prior decision and indicate (in the decision area for that decision) that the reopening replaces the decision.  Thus the previous decision will indicate that it is no longer valid and which decision replaces it.  This technique preserves the previous decision and forwards the reader to the decision on reopening.

I think Paul you have summed it up very well. My thoughts too on similar lines.

Paul,

Thanks for that quick response.  That method works fine.

I guess I was wondering if I was missing any 'automatic' linking within the system, but adjusting the decision box (as you describe/as I expected) works perfectly well.

Ben