Opinion

Smith v. Principi

  • 14 Vet. App. 297
  • 2001 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 127
  • 2001 WL 194995
Court
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Filed
Feb 22, 2001
Status
Published
On the bench
Greene, Ivers, Kramer
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 20.4%

The opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appealed a July 16, 1999, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision that denied service connection for residuals of malignant melanoma of the left foot. On December 4, 2000, the Court issued its opinion in the instant appeal. The Court’s judgment was entered on December 28, 2000. On January 3, 2001, counsel for the appellant notified the Court of the appellant’s death. Counsel has provided a statement indicating that the appellant died on September 28, 2000.

The Court held in Landicho v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 42, 46-49 (1994), that substitution by a party claiming accrued benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 5121 (a) is not permissible in this Court where the appellant is a veteran who dies while the denial by the Board of the veteran’s claim for disability compensation under chapter 11. of title 38, U.S.Code, is pending here on appeal. See also Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1243-44 (Fed.Cir.1996) (expressly agreeing with this Court’s Landicho holding). Under such circumstances, the Court held that the appropriate remedy is to vacate the Board decision from which the appeal was taken and to dismiss the appeal. Landicho, 7 Vet.App. at 54 . This ensures that the Board decision and the underlying regional office (RO) decision(s) will have no preclusive effect in the adjudication of *298 any accrued-benefits claims derived from the veteran’s entitlements. It also nullifies the previous merits adjudication by the RO because that decision was subsumed in the Board decision. See Yoma v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 298 (1995) (per curiam order) (relying on Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 69, 80 (1995)); see also Hudgins v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 365, 368 (1995) (per curiam order). Because this appeal has become moot by virtue of the death of the appellant, the appeal will be dismissed. See Landicho, 7 Vet.App. at 53-54 .

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the Court’s judgment is recalled. It is further

ORDERED that the Court’s December 4, 2000, opinion is withdrawn. It is further

ORDERED that the July 16, 1999, Board decision is VACATED. It is further

ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

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.