Opinion

Cecil Gates v. R. James Nicholson

Court
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Filed
Dec 2, 2006
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 25.4%

adopting Rosler v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 241 (1991)

How later courts described this case

  • adopting Rosler v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 241 (1991)

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO . 03-1443

CECIL GATES, APPELLANT ,

V.

R. JAMES NICHOLSON ,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before KASOLD, MOORMAN, and SCHOELEN, Judges.

ORDER

On July 25, 2003, Cecil Gates appealed through counsel a July 14, 2003, decision of the

Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) that determined that there was no clear and unmistakable error

(CUE) in a November 19, 2002, Board decision. In an unopposed motion to dismiss, the Secretary

notes that on January 7, 2003, Mr. Gates filed a motion for reconsideration as to the November 2002

Board decision, which the Board Chairman has yet to act upon, and on January 23, 2003, filed a

second motion for reconsideration as to the same Board decision, which the Board Chairman denied

on April 2, 2003. The Secretary argues that the November 2002 Board decision was not final when

the July 2003 Board rendered its decision and that the July 2003 Board decision should be vacated.

The Court agrees. A CUE claim cannot lie as to a Board decision that is still open to direct review.

See May v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 310, 320 (2005).

Moreover, to the extent that Mr. Gates argues that a January 10, 2003, letter to the Court

constituted a Notice of Appeal (NOA) of the November 2002 Board decision, the Court notes that

it does not have jurisdiction over that decision because of the outstanding motion for reconsideration.

See Linville v. West, 165 F.3d 1382, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (adopting Rosler v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App.

241 (1991)). Inasmuch as the outstanding motion for reconsideration was filed within 120 days of

the November 2002 Board decision, in the event that the Board Chairman denies the outstanding

motion for reconsideration, Mr. Gates will have 120 days after that Board Chairman's decision to file

an NOA. See Linville, supra; see also Losh v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 87, 90 (1993).

Upon consideration of the foregoing it is

ORDERED that the July 14, 2003, Board decision denying the CUE claim is VACATED.

It is further

ORDERED that the Secretary's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is granted and the

appeal of the November 19, 2002, Board decision is DISMISSED.

DATED: December 2, 2005 PER CURIAM.

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.