Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the parties’ joint motion to vacate in part a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and remanded for further proceedings. The remand concerned an earlier-effective-date claim for service-connected bilateral hearing loss and a motion alleging clear and unmistakable error in a prior regional office decision, in light of intervening precedent.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the parties' joint motion to vacate the Veterans Court's judgment in part and remand for consideration of intervening precedent should be granted.
- Whether the Veterans Court should reconsider the section 5103(a) notice issue and related effective-date and CUE issues in light of Hartman, Sanders, Simmons, Criswell, and other recent authority.
Holdings
- The joint motion was granted, and the Veterans Court's judgment was vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the order.
Key quotations
“The CAVC’s judgment is vacated-in-part as noted above and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.” (926)
Factual background
Harris N. Hollín sought an effective date earlier than October 27, 1998, for service connection for bilateral hearing loss. He also sought revision of the October 27, 1998 regional office decision based on clear and unmistakable error, asserting that the agency failed to consider an alleged informal claim filed in 1953. The Board denied both requests, and the Veterans Court affirmed the no-CUE determination while vacating and remanding the earlier-effective-date determination for inadequate section 5103(a) notice.
Procedural history
The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied an earlier effective date for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and denied a motion alleging clear and unmistakable error in an October 27, 1998 regional office decision. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the no-CUE determination but vacated and remanded the earlier-effective-date issue because the Secretary failed to provide notice under 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a). Both parties appealed to the Federal Circuit, which stayed the case pending decisions in Sanders and Simmons. The parties then jointly sought vacatur and remand so that the Veterans Court could consider Hartman, Sanders, and other relevant intervening authority in the first instance.
Remand instructions
The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims was directed to conduct further proceedings consistent with the order and to consider Hartman, Sanders, Criswell, and any other recent relevant cases in the first instance. The vacatur applied in part to the judgment concerning the earlier-effective-date claim and the motion to revise the October 27, 1998 regional office decision.