U.S. Code » Title 38 » Part PART V— BOARDS, ADMINISTRATIONS, AND SERVICES › Chapter CHAPTER 72— UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— PROCEDURE

38 U.S.C. § 7262

Fee for filing appeals

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims may impose a fee of not more than $50 for the filing of any appeal with the Court. The Court shall establish procedures under which such a fee may be waived in the case of an appeal filed by or on behalf of a person who demonstrates that the requirement that such fee be paid will impose a hardship on that person. A decision as to such a waiver is final and may not be reviewed in any other court.(b) The Court may from time to time adjust the maximum amount permitted for a fee imposed under subsection (a) of this section based upon inflation and similar fees charged by other courts established under Article I of the Constitution.(Added Pub. L. 100–687, div. A, title III, § 301(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4115, § 4062; renumbered § 7262, Pub. L. 102–40, title IV, § 402(b)(1), May 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 238; amended Pub. L. 105–368, title V, § 512(a)(1), Nov. 11, 1998, 112 Stat. 3341.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1998—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–368 substituted “Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims” for “Court of Veterans Appeals”.

1991—Pub. L. 102–40 renumbered section 4062 of this title as this section.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–368 effective on first day of first month beginning more than 90 days after Nov. 11, 1998, see section 513 of Pub. L. 105–368, set out as a note under section 7251 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1993–2020 · leading case: Nicholas Ribaudo v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 552 (Vet. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nicholas Ribaudo v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 552 (Vet. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 303 , such management must be consistent with the law and interpretations of the law as issued by the judicial system, see 38 U.S.C. § 7262 ; Butts v. Brown, 5 Vet.”
Hector Ortiz-Valles v. Robert A. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 65 (Vet. App. 2016). “Ortiz-Valles’s Notice of Appeal was timely, and the Court has jurisdiction to review the Board decision pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7262 (a). This matter was referred to a panel of the Court to address whether the plain language of 38 C.”
Owens v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 65 (Vet. App. 1997). “Although it is true that any number of appellants could have sufficient net worth that paying a $50 filing fee would not constitute a “hardship” under 38 U.S.C. § 7262 (a), it is also true that few, if any, of these appellants would have a net worth exceeding $2,000,000.”
Pearlman v. West, 11 Vet. App. 443 (Vet. App. 1998). “The Court has jurisdiction of this case under 38 U.S.C. § 7262 (a). For the following reasons, the Court will vacate the decision of the Board and remand the matter for readjudication consistent with this opinion.”
Claasen v. Brown, 33 F. Supp. 2d 511 (N.D.W. Va. 1998). “This is an action for judicial review pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7262 and 7264 of the final administration decision of the Under Secretary of Health (“Secretary”).”
Charles R. Coley v. Robert L. Wilkie (Vet. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “2014); see 38 U.S.C. § 7262 (a). 8 Scarborough, 541 U.”
Ramirez v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 6 (Vet. App. 1993). “The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 7262 (a) (West 1991). We vacate the BVA decision and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Daniel Garza, Jr. v. Robert A. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 222 (Vet. App. 2016). “This appeal is timely, and the Court has jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7262 (a) and 7266(a). This case was referred to a panel to discuss the interaction and applicability of 38 C.”
Harris v. McDonald, 669 F. App'x 564 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Harris’s unconstitutional-delay challenge could justify an exception to the “decision” requirement of 38 U.S.C. § 7262 . Indeed, Mr. Harris has not alleged facts sufficient to support his constitutional challenge.”
Moncrief v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 339 (Vet. App. 1993). “of the record, the Secretary’s motion for summary affirmance, and the appellant’s informal brief, the Court holds that the appellant has not demonstrated that the BVA committed error, in its findings of fact, conclusions of law, procedural processes, consideration of the…”
Weaver v. West, 12 Vet. App. 229 (Vet. App. 1999). “This appeal is timely, and the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7262 (a) and 7266(a). For the reasons that follow, the Court will vacate the decision of the Board and remand the matter.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.