NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2005-7191

DANNY E. SAINTIGNON, Claimant-Appellant, v.

JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secret ary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee. Danny E. Saintignon , of Fayetteville, Arkansas, pro se. James W. Poirer , Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justic e, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. With him on the brief were Gregory G. Katsas , Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Franklin E. White, Jr. , Assistant Director. Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2005-7191

DANNY E. SAINTIGNON, Claimant-Appellant,

v. JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States Cour t of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 04-295, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.

______ ____________________ DECIDED: November 10, 2008

______ ____________________ Before MICHEL, Chief Judge , CLEVENGER and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.
Danny E. Saintignon (“Sai ntignon”) appeals from the August 3, 2005, final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Ve terans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming an October 7, 2003, decision of t he Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“BVA”) that denied service connection for re siduals of a head injury. We remand

. I Before the Veterans Court, Saintignon raised three arguments. First, he argued that he had not been provided one of the notices required by 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1)(2004), and asserted that if he had received proper notice he “might [have been] able to present evidence that [would have] resulted in [his] cl aim being granted.” The Veterans Court rejected Saintignon’s argument on this point because then- applicable Veterans Court precedent, Mayfield v. Nicholson , 19 Vet. App. 103 (2005), put the burden of showing prejudice from faulty notice on th e veteran, and the Veterans Court held that Saintignon failed to show such prejudice. Second, Saintignon argued that he was pr ejudiced by inadequat e notice given to him at the BVA hearing as to the evidence he needed to submit to substantiate his claim. This argument was also re jected by the Veterans Court under Mayfield on the ground that Saintignon failed to show “any pr ejudice that would justify remanding this case for a new hearing.” Finally, Saintignon argued that the BVA impr operly considered Social Security Administration (“SSA”) records. This argumen t was also rejected by the Veterans Court on its holding that, under Mayfield , Saintignon failed to show prejudicial error from the BVA's alleged error in considering the SSA records.
II On September 7, 2005, Saintignon, acting pro se , filed a notice of appeal from the final decision of the Veterans Cour t. His appeal was stay ed (along with many others) pending this cour t’s review of the Mayfield decision. On May 16, 2007, this
court overruled Mayfield , holding that the burden to show lack of prejudice from faulty section 3.159(b) notice falls on the Secretary of the Depar tment of Veterans Affairs (“Secretary”), not on the veteran. See Sanders v. Nicholson , 487 F.3d 881 (2007).

2005-7191 22005-7191 3 Following the issuance of the Sanders decision, the stay on this case (and the others being held for the Sanders decision) was lifted. On December 10, 2007, the Secretary—recognizing that at least the first ground decided by the Veterans Court was
incorrect under Sanders —moved to remand this case to the Veterans Court for further proceedings. In response to that motion, th is court asked Saintignon how he wished to proceed. His pro se response said he seeks review of “all issues” and “believes this appeal should move forward as seen by the c ourt.” Consequently, this court set the case for briefing in the ordinary course, and at completion of briefing the case was assigned to this panel.
III The Secretary renews his request that t he case be remanded in light of the error by the Veterans Court in applying Mayfield to the facts of Saintignon’s case. Saintignon’s informal brief does not address with particularity the three issues decided by the Veterans Court. Instead, he insist s that the facts of re cord demonstrate his entitlement to the benefits he se eks. In his informal reply br ief, Saintignon avers that he has met his “burden of proof.”
IV We agree with the Secretary that we mu st remand Saintignon’s case because, after Sanders , the Secretary is requir ed to shoulder the burden with regard to whether the notice failure is prejudicial. Because the Veterans Court also applied Mayfield to reject Saintignon’s other arguments, remand of the case is appropriate.