Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07080/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07080-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Petitioner
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA,

Petitioner

v.

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-7080

______________________ 

Petition for review pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Section 502.

 -------------------------------------------------------------

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS, VETERANS 

OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES,

Petitioners

v.

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-7081

______________________ 

Petition for review pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Section 502.

Case: 15-7080 Document: 37-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/22/2016
 2 PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA v. VA

______________________ 

Decided: June 22, 2016

______________________ 

LINDA E. BLAUHUT, Paralyzed Veterans of America, 

Washington, DC, argued for petitioner in 2015-7080. Also 

represented by JENNIFER ANN ZAJAC. 

DORIS HINES, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett 

& Dunner, LLP, argued for petitioners in 2015-7081. Also 

represented by LAUREN J. DREYER; BENJAMIN 

SCHLESINGER, Atlanta, GA. 

MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent in 2015-

7080. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR.; DAVID J. BARRANS, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, 

Office of General Counsel, United States Department of 

Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent in 2015-

7081. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR.; DAVID J. BARRANS, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, 

Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

THOMAS JOHN KNIFFEN, I, Law Office of Thomas J. 

Kniffen, New York, NY, for amicus curiae New York State 

Bar Association in 2015-7081. Also represented by 

CHRISTINE KHALILI-BORNA CLEMENS, Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, Newburgh, NY. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-7080 Document: 37-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/22/2016
PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA v. VA 3

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

The Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Disabled 

Veterans of America (collectively, Petitioners) challenge 

the validity of regulations in 38 C.F.R. parts 3, 19, and 20, 

requiring all claims and administrative appeals to originate on standard VA forms. See generally Standard 

Claims and Appeals Forms, 79 Fed. Reg. 67660 (Dep’t of 

Veterans Affairs Sept. 25, 2014).

In related petitions,1 this question was heard and decided by a panel of this court. See Veterans Justice Grp., 

LLC v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 818 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 

2016). We are bound by the decision of the prior panel, 

and similarly deny the requested relief.

DENIED

No costs.

 

1 Veterans Justice Grp., LLC v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs (2015-7021), Nat’l Org. of Veterans Advocates Inc., v. 

Sec’y of Veterans Affairs (2015-7025); and Am. Legion v. 

Sec’y of Veterans Affairs (2015-7061). The Petitioners also 

challenge the regulations to the extent that they foreclose 

equitable tolling. This challenge is moot given the government’s clarification at oral argument that the regulations do not foreclose equitable tolling. The Petitioners’ 

challenge based on the statutory notice requirements 

under 38 U.S.C. § 5103 is also moot because the government does not contend that notice on standard VA forms 

satisfies its statutory notice requirements in all cases. 

For the same reasons, we do not decide the Petitioners’ 

request for a ruling that Social Security regulations under 

38 C.F.R. § 3.153 remain valid or that the VA be precluded from contacting represented veterans without involving their representatives.

Case: 15-7080 Document: 37-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/22/2016