agency interpretation of regulation is not entitled to deference if inherently unreasonable
How later courts described this case
- agency interpretation of regulation is not entitled to deference if inherently unreasonable
- Steinberg and Kramer, JJ., dissenting from order denying en banc review
- Kramer and Steinberg, JJ., dissenting from order denying en banc review
- Steinberg and Kramer, JJ., dissenting
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
On January 19, 1993, a three-judge panel of the Court (panel marked with an *) issued a decision in the above-captioned appeal. 4 Vet.App. 78 . On February 2, 1993, appellant timely filed a motion for review by the Court en banc, pursuant to Rule 35(b) of this Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. At the request of members of the Court, the Secretary filed a response on March 5, 1993. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is by the Court en banc
ORDERED that appellant’s motion for review by the Court is denied.