# Cycholl v. Principi

> United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · December 19, 2001 · 15 Vet. App. 355

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502262

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles F. CYCHOLL, Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee
- **Court:** United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
- **Decided:** December 19, 2001
- **Citations:** 15 Vet. App. 355; 2001 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 1499; 2001 WL 1642027
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Holdaway
- **Judges:** Holdaway, Ivers, Steinberg
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502262

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the Court need not address the Secretary's position at the litigation stage where the Secretary failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that his position was substantially justified at the administrative stage

## Opinion text

HOLDAWAY, Judge,
concurring:
I concur with both the principal opinion and also the views expressed by Judge Ivers.
I, however, am not prepared to say that the “failure” of the Board to discuss the VCAA will, in all cases, automatically constitute a lack of substantial justification. When that law was passed, this Court struggled for a time with its full implications. We resolved this by remanding most cases even though we recognized there were cases where the applicability of the VCAA was problematic. We should not require the Board to be prescient as a condition precedent of being “substantially justified.” If the Secretary offers a defense of substantial justification in a case where the Board “failed” to discuss the VCAA, I, for one, will carefully consider the arguments in the context of the facts of the particular case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502262. Public record. Not legal advice.