Opinion

McQueen v. Principi

  • 14 Vet. App. 300
  • 2001 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 186
  • 2001 WL 243449
Court
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Filed
Mar 13, 2001
Status
Published
On the bench
Farley, Ivers, Per Curiam, Steinberg
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 25.4%

The opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 96-403

HAYDEN B. MCQUEEN , APPELLANT ,

V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before FARLEY, IVERS, and STEINBERG, Judges.

ORDER

In a panel opinion dated December 16, 1999, McQueen v. West, 13 Vet.App. 237 (1999), the

Court affirmed an April 8, 1996, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) that concluded

that the appellant had failed to submit well-grounded claims, as required under 38 U.S.C. § 5107 as

it existed at that time, to establish secondary service connection for a chronic acquired low back

disorder, carcinoma in situ of the bladder, and impotence. The appellant subsequently appealed,

through counsel, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit).

On November 9, 2000, the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475,

114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000) (VCAA) was enacted. The VCAA, inter alia, amended 38 U.S.C.

§ 5107(a) to eliminate the well-grounded-claim requirement. VCAA, § 4, 114 Stat. at 2098-99 (to

be codified at 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a)); see Luyster v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 186 (2000) (per curiam

order). Pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the VCAA, that amendment to 38 U.S.C. § 5107 is applicable

to "any claim . . . filed before the date of the enactment of [the VCAA] and not final as of that date."

In an opinion dated December 14, 2000, the Federal Circuit vacated this Court's opinion in this case

and remanded the appeal with instructions to this Court to remand the case to the appropriate

authority in the agency for prompt readjudication of the appellant's claims pursuant to the

requirements set forth in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Adjudication Procedure Manual,

M21-1, for veterans seeking benefits for secondary service connection. Because the Board denied

the appellant's claims as not well grounded, a remand is required in order to provide the Board with

an opportunity to readjudicate the appellant's claims. See Luyster, supra.

On remand, the appellant is free to submit additional evidence and argument necessary to the

resolution of his claims. See Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet.App. 369, 372-73 (1999) (per curiam

order). The Board shall proceed expeditiously. See Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act, Pub. L.

No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994) (found at 38 U.S.C. § 5101 note) (requiring

Secretary to provide for "expeditious treatment" of claims remanded by Board or Court); Drosky

v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 251, 257 (1997).

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the April 8, 1996, Board decision is VACATED and the matters are

REMANDED to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this order and the opinion of the

Federal Circuit.

DATED: March 13, 2001 PER CURIAM.

2

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.