Opinion

Ferguson v. Brown

  • 9 Vet. App. 59
  • 1996 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 195
  • 1996 WL 159473
Court
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Filed
Apr 5, 1996
Status
Published
On the bench
Farley, Mankin, Nebeker
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 13.1%

relying on Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 69, 80 (1995)

How later courts described this case

  • relying on Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 69, 80 (1995)

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On March 28, 1996, the Secretary filed a motion to dismiss and to stay further proceedings because the appellant, James Ferguson, died on February 21,1996.

The Court held in Landicho v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 42, 44 (1994), that substitution is not permissible in this Court where the appellant is a veteran who dies while the denial by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) of the veteran’s claim for disability compensation under chapter 11 of title 38, U.S.Code, is pending here on appeal. Under such circumstances, the Court held that the appropriate remedy is to vacate the BVA decision from which the appeal was taken (and cause the underlying regional office (RO) decision to be vacated as well) and to dismiss the appeal. Landicho, 7 Vet.App. at 54 . This is done to ensure that the BVA decision and the underlying RO decision will have no preclusive effect in the adjudication of any accrued-benefits claims derived from the veteran’s entitlements. Ibid.

On consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the September 27, 1994, BVA decision is VACATED. This decision *60 of the Court vacating the BVA decision has the legal effect of nullifying the previous merits adjudication by the RO because this decision was subsumed in the BVA decision. See Yoma v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 298 (1995) (relying on Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 69, 80 (1995)); see also Hudgins v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 365 (1995) (per curiam) (any accrued benefits claim filed by a survivor will have the same character of the claim that a veteran was pursuing at the time of his or her death). It is further

ORDERED that the Secretary’s motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is therefore DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to cancel oral argument in this case, scheduled for April 10,1996, at 10:00 a.m.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.