Hale v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 21 (Vet. App. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Hale v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 21 (Vet. App. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Stephens v. Principi (cavc, 2002-07-10)
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Stephens v. Principi
Vet. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holliday v. Principi, 14 Vet.App. 280, 285 (holding, inter alia, that all provisions of VCAA were retroactively applicable to claims pending at time of enactment of VCAA), mot. for recons, denied, 14 Vet.App. 327 (per cu-riam order), mot. for full Court review denied, 15 Vet.App. 21 (2001) (en banc order); VA Gen.
discussed Cited "see" Kuzma v. Principi
Vet. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holliday v. Principi, 14 Vet.App. 280, 286 ("the Court holds that all provisions of the VCAA are potentially applicable to claims pending on the date of the VCAA’s enactment”), mot. for recons, denied, 14 Vet.App. 327 (per curiam order), mot. for full Court review denied, 15 Vet.App. 21 (2001) (en banc order). .
cited Cited "see" Mackay v. Principi
Fed. Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holliday v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 21 (2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Leo G. HALE, Appellant,
v.
Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee
99-1691.
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
May 23, 2001.
15 Vet. App. 21
Kramer, Holdaway, Steinberg.
Published

Lead Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

In a single-judge order of February 26, 2001, the Court remanded a June 29, 1999, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) that determined that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen a claim for service connection for a neuropsychiatric disorder. The Court found that a remand was required by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub.L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000) (VCAA). On March 19, 2001, the appellant filed, through counsel, a timely motion for reconsideration or a panel decision.

On consideration of the foregoing and the record on appeal, it is

ORDERED, by the single judge, that the motion for reconsideration is denied. It is further

ORDERED, by the panel, that the motion for a panel decision is denied.

Concurrence

KRAMER, Chief Judge,

concurring:

The appellant has failed to demonstrate that he would be prejudiced by a remand under the VCAA. “See Best v. Principi, — Vet.App. -, -, No. 99-1144, order at 1-2 (May 15, 2001) (per curiam order) (because of as yet unknown factual and legal context in which claim readjudi-cation will occur, absent ‘appropriate circumstances,’ Court refrains from exercising, either sua sponte or at appellant’s request, its discretion to address all allegations of error by Board of Veterans’ Appeals once it is determined that VCAA necessitates remand.”. Specifically, such prejudice may result where the appellant would have (1) argued and provided support for a reversal with a grant of benefits by this Court or (2) demonstrated that he would be prejudiced by a remand of his claim without consideration of additional allegations of error; that is, that the errors would not be mooted by a remand pursuant to the VCAA or could not be properly raised and eventually remedied on remand to the Board. '

Concurrence

STEINBERG, Judge,

concurring:

After careful examination of the record on appeal and all pleadings in this case, I do not believe that the appellant has presented a viable argument for a panel decision. I do not agree with the analysis in Chief Judge Kramer’s statement that the Court should consider the appellant’s specific assignments of Board error only when the appellant has demonstrated that he “would be prejudiced by a remand without consideration of’ such assignments of Board error. The potential for prejudice is enough, in my judgment.