Opinion

Ozer v. Principi

  • 14 Vet. App. 257
  • 2001 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 69
  • 2001 WL 96481
Court
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Filed
Feb 6, 2001
Status
Published
Author
Holdaway
On the bench
Holdaway, Ivers, Steinberg
Cited by
11 cases

holding that § 21.3046(c) (2000) “cannot stand” because it “imposes a 10-year limitation ... that was not contained in or authorized by 38 U.S.C. § 3512, or any other provisions of title 38[, U.S.Code]”

How later courts described this case

  • holding that § 21.3046(c) (2000) “cannot stand” because it “imposes a 10-year limitation ... that was not contained in or authorized by 38 U.S.C. § 3512, or any other provisions of title 38[, U.S.Code]”
  • holding 38 C.F.R § 211.3046(c) invalid as in contravention of 38 U.S.C. § 3512

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

HOLDAWAY, Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent with the holding of the majority. What we have here is two conflicting statutes. 38 U.S.C. § 3512 (b)(1) and 38 U.S.C. § 3512 (b)(3). There is no question that § 3512(b)(1) provides a 10-year limitation on eligibility for DEA benefits. The question is whether § 3512(b)(3) also provides for that 10-year limitation. The majority says that it does not. The majority assumes that since Congress created fixed periods of specific duration for all title 38 education or vocational assistance programs except for the DEA program, Congress did not intend for DEA to be limited to any fixed period. In the guise of “interpretation,” the majority in fact is rewriting the statute to vitiate one section of the law (§ 3512(b)(1)) and fill in a gap in another section that Congress, through sloppy legislation, failed to do. The result is good, in terms of equity for the appellant, but in arriving at this result, the Court renders § 3512(b)(1) meaningless.

I take note, with some amusement, of the majority opinion’s attempt to rebut my dissent. The amusement stems from using the term “plain meaning” in connection with this, to put it mildly, convoluted and essentially indecipherable statute. However, my quarrel is not with my colleagues as much as it is with the shoddy legislation that enticed them to assume a legislative role rather than a judicial one. I do not repine. The result is, perhaps, good as equity if not as law.

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.