# Ozer v. Principi

> United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · November 22, 2002 · 16 Vet. App. 475

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502334

## Case

- **Full name:** Catherine A. OZER, Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee
- **Court:** United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
- **Decided:** November 22, 2002
- **Citations:** 16 Vet. App. 475; 2002 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 942; 2002 WL 31641710
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Steinberg
- **Judges:** Holdaway, Ivers, Per Curiam, Steinberg
- **Cited by:** 10 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/9502334

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the Secretary’s position in promulgating the regulation was substantially justified, despite later invalidation of the regulation, because “there was no pri- or disapproval of or challenge to the regulation”
- finding the Secretary’s position substantially justified where, inter alia, the “case was one of first impression” and “there was no prior disapproval of or challenge to the [Secretary’s interpretation]”
- rejecting reimbursement for time spent on motions for extended time due to inefficient workload management

## Opinion text

STEINBERG, Judge,
concurring:
I write separately to express my continued disapproval of the analysis and holding in Felton v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 276 (1994) [hereinafter Felton II]. See id. at 287-94 (Steinberg, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). I maintain my belief that Felton II was wrongly decided, and thus, were it not for its precedential force, I would vote to grant the application in this case, for the reasons stated in my dissent in Felton II, supra. I am, however, constrained by the Felton II holding to join in this order, albeit reluctantly. See Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992) (“[w]here there is an earlier panel ... opinion, we apply a rule that in a subsequent case, a panel or single judge may not render a decision which conflicts materially with such earlier panel”).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502334. Public record. Not legal advice.