Ernesto A. Herrera, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Acting Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 5 F.3d 1506 (Fed. Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Ernesto A. Herrera, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Acting Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 5 F.3d 1506 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Masayesva v. Hale (ca9, 1997-07-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Masayesva v. Hale
9th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States, 11 Cl.Ct. 614, 665-66 (1987) (qualifying Dr. Workman as “an expert in appraisal and range management” and characterizing his proposed measure of damages as “especially persuasive”), aff'd, 5 F.3d 1506 (Fed.Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1030 , 114 S.Ct. 1538 , 128 L.Ed.2d 191 (1994).
discussed Cited "see" 47 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 524, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5385, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8731 Vernon Masayesva, Chairman of the Hopi Tribal Council of the Hopi Indian Tribe, for and on Behalf of the Hopi Indian Tribe v. Albert Hale, President of the Navajo Nation Navajo Nation, Ferrell Secakuku, Chairman of the Hopi Tribal Council of the Hopi Indian Tribe, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Albert Hale, President of the Navajo Nation Navajo Nation United States of America, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants. Ferrell Secakuku, Chairman of the Hopi Tribal Council of the Hopi Indian Tribe, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Albert Hale, President of the Navajo Nation Navajo Nation United States of America, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees
9th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States, 11 Cl.Ct. 614, 665-66 (1987) (qualifying Dr. Workman as "an expert in appraisal and range management" and characterizing his proposed measure of damages as "especially persuasive"), aff'd, 5 F.3d 1506 (Fed.Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1030 , 114 S.Ct. 1538 , 128 L.Ed.2d 191 (1994). 24 The district court thoughtfully examined the methodology and opinion of each expert, and accepted Dr. Workman's measure of damages only after making appropriate downward adjustments.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Jicarilla Apache Nation, Formerly Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence low
William F. Fratcher, Scott on Trusts § 172 (4th ed.1987)); see also White Mountain Apache Tribe of Ariz. v. United States, 26 Cl.Ct. 446, 449 (1992), aff'd, 5 F.3d 1506 (Fed.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ernesto A. Herrera, Claimant-Appellant
v.
Anthony J. Principi, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs
93-7007.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Aug 20, 1993.
5 F.3d 1506
Published

5 F.3d 1506
NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.

Ernesto A. HERRERA, Claimant-Appellant,
v.
Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.

No. 93-7007.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 20, 1993.

Before NEWMAN, ARCHER, and MICHEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION

1

Ernesto A. Herrera seeks review of an August 21, 1992 order of the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (CVA), which denied review of a June 29, 1992 memorandum decision (Vet.App. No. 90-197). The memorandum decision affirmed a December 28, 1989, decision of the Board of Veteran's Appeals (No. 89-23 338), which denied service connection for residuals of lightning shock. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

2

This court possesses jurisdiction to review a decision of the CVA "with respect to the validity of any statute or regulation ... or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the Court in making the decision." 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7292(a). In the instant case, we are not required to interpret any statute or regulation. Although Herrera contends that the CVA failed to decide the issue of whether as a matter of law the VA must provide assistance to a veteran filing a claim, the rules of the VA and the precedent of the CVA already require this assistance.[1] See 38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.103(a); Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90, 92-93 (1990). The CVA is presumed to follow its own precedent requiring assistance to the veteran so that the issue before it was the factual one of whether the VA provided this assistance to Herrera. Because this court does not have jurisdiction to review factual issues, we dismiss the appeal. See Livingston v. Derwinski, 959 F.2d 224, 225 (Fed.Cir.1992).

1

Congress enacted the duty to assist into law effective September 1, 1989. See 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5107(a)