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. § 7267

Decisions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) A decision upon a proceeding before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims shall be made as quickly as practicable. In a case heard by a panel of the Court, the decision shall be made by a majority vote of the panel in accordance with the rules of the Court. The decision of the judge or panel hearing the case so made shall be the decision of the Court.(b) A judge or panel shall make a determination upon any proceeding before the Court, and any motion in connection with such a proceeding, that is assigned to the judge or panel. The judge or panel shall make a report of any such determination which constitutes the judge or panel’s final disposition of the proceeding.(c) The Court shall designate in its decision in any case those specific records of the Government on which it relied (if any) in making its decision. The Secretary shall preserve records so designated for not less than the period of time designated by the Archivist of the United States.(Added Pub. L. 100–687, div. A, title III, § 301(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4117, § 4067; renumbered § 7267, Pub. L. 102–40, title IV, § 402(b)(1), May 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 238; amended Pub. L. 102–82, §§ 1, 8(1), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 375, 377; Pub. L. 102–83, § 4(b)(1), (2)(E), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 404, 405; 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 4067 of this title as this section.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–82, § 1(3), struck out before period at end “except as provided in subsection (d) of this section”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–82, § 1(1), (2), redesignated subsec. (c) as (b) and struck out former subsec. (b) which read as follows: “The Court shall include in its decision a statement of its conclusions of law and determinations as to factual matters.”

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 102–83 substituted “Secretary” for “Administrator”.

Pub. L. 102–82, § 8(1), substituted “Archivist of the United States” for “Administrator of the National Archives and Records Administration”.

Pub. L. 102–82, § 1(2), redesignated subsec. (e) as (c). Former subsec. (c) redesignated (b).

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 102–82, § 1(1), struck out subsec. (d) which read as follows:

“(1) In the case of a proceeding determined by a single judge of the Court, the decision of the judge shall become the decision of the Court unless before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date of the decision by the judge the Court, upon the motion of either party or on its own initiative, directs that the decision be reviewed by a panel of the Court. In such a case, the decision of the judge initially deciding the case shall not be a part of the record.

“(2) In the case of a proceeding determined by a panel of the Court, the decision of the panel shall become the decision of the Court unless before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date of the decision by the panel the Court, upon the motion of either party or on its own initiative, directs that the decision be reviewed by an expanded panel of the Court (or the Court en banc). In such a case, the decision of the panel initially deciding the case shall not be a part of the record.”

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 102–82, § 1(2), redesignated subsec. (e) as (c).

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 8 cases, 1991–2001 · leading case: Wensch v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 362 (Vet. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wensch v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 362 (Vet. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “This Court has a duty to make decisions upon proceedings before the Court "as quickly as practicable," 38 U.S.C. § 7267 (a). As we fulfill that duty in this post-VCAA era, the Court should move toward dispositions of appeals in light of the entire body of veterans law without an…”
Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 252 (Vet. App. 1992). “After consideration of appellant’s response and the Secretary’s pleadings, this Court, through the action of a single judge, as permitted by 38 U.S.C. § 7267 (formerly § 4067), held that appellant’s NO A was untimely and dismissed the appeal.”
Charles W. Travelstead, Claimant-Appellee v. Edward J. Derwinski, Sec'y, of Vets. Affairs, 978 F.2d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “” 38 U.S.C.S. § 7267 (b) (Law Co-op. Supp.1992).”
Tobler v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 8 (Vet. App. 1991). “38 U.S.C. § 7267 (d) (formerly § 4067(d)).”
Aronson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 153 (Vet. App. 1994). “In an order dated February 13, 1992, Judge Ivers, acting as a single judge pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7267 , reversed the BVA decision and remanded the matter to (1) amend the 1954 rating decision to award service connection, and (2) “determine the appropriate rating for [the…”
Cleary v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 305 (Vet. App. 1995). “38 U.S.C. § 7267 (a), (b) (emphasis added).”
Kushindana v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 73 (Vet. App. 1991). “Because the missing designation of record was filed and the case appeared on track, appellant’s motion for summary judgment was denied by order of June 25, 1991. On July 8, 1991, appellant filed a motion for panel review of the denial of summary judgment pursuant to Rule 35(b)…”
Morris v. West, 11 Vet. App. 174 (Vet. App. 1998). “VA was allowed to rearrange the record out of chron[o]logical order”; (2) the appellant believes that Judge Farley has a lower disability rating from VA than does the appellant; and (3) in the appellant’s words, “Judge Farley has ruled that I am less deserving than other…”
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.