# Nagler v. Derwinski

> United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · June 6, 1991 · 1 Vet. App. 297

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6608552

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert E. NAGLER v. Edward J. DERWINSKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee Joseph L. JONES v. Edward J. DERWINSKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
- **Court:** United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
- **Decided:** June 6, 1991
- **Citations:** 1 Vet. App. 297; 1991 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 38; 1991 WL 146493
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Steinberg
- **Judges:** Farley, Mankin, Steinberg
- **Cited by:** 27 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled by Thomas J. Kuzma, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 341 F.3d 1327 (2003).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6608552

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that parties to Board’s review of fee agreement are the claimant and the attorney

## Opinion text

STEINBERG, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the Court’s excellent opinion. I write separately to stress one point about the Court’s holding in Part IV.A. of the opinion. In concluding that “it is appropriate, indeed necessary, for the BVA to communicate directly with a represented client in connection with the review of a fee agreement authorized and conducted under 38 U.S.C. § 3404 (c)(2)” (ante, p. 304), the Court has resolved that question in the context of the attorney-client agreements presented in these two cases. Neither of those agreements provide explicitly that all contacts (including as to fee agreements) by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with respect to particular claims for benefits by the client should be made with the attorney and not directly with the client. Were we presented with such a provision in an agreement and timely notice of it to VA, I believe we would have a very different matter to resolve.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6608552. Public record. Not legal advice.