opining that VBA brought “about a major expansion of the Court’s responsibilities as to review of BVA factfinding”
How later courts described this case
- opining that VBA brought “about a major expansion of the Court’s responsibilities as to review of BVA factfinding”
- analyzing Hicks and Hersey in relation to Anderson, U.S. Gypsum Co., and Gilbert
- en banc per curiam order
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER
PER CURIAM:
On November 3, 2003, the appellant, through counsel, filed a motion for an initial decision by the full Court. He argues that full-Court consideration is necessary because the appeal presents the opportunity to consider all aspects of the amendments to the Veterans Benefits Act of 2002, Pub.L. No. 107-330, 116 Stat. 2820 (2002).
Motions for a full-Court decision are not favored. Ordinarily they will not be granted unless such action is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions or to resolve a question of exceptional importance. See U.S. Vet.App. R. 35(c). In this matter, the appellant has not shown that either basis exists to warrant a full-Court decision.
Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is
*34 ORDERED that the appellant’s motion for an initial decision by the full Court is denied.