UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 97-1948 J OS E A. S ANCHEZ -B ENI TEZ , A PP EL L ANT , V . ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE .

Be fore KRAMER, Chief Judge , and F ARL EY and H OL DAWAY, Judges

. O R D E R I n a De c e mbe r 2 9, 19 99 , o pin ion , t he Cour t a ff ir me d a July 3, 19 97 , B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Appea ls (Boa

rd) de cision that had denie d the appe llant's c l aim for se rvice connec tion for a ne ck dis a bil ity (c la im 1) a nd ha d de nie d a n inc re a se d ra tin g fo r his se rv ic e -c on ne c te d d e g e ne ra tiv e dis c disease w ith lumbar muscle spasm, cur rently rate d as 20% disabling (cla im 2). S a n chez- Benitez v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 282 (1999). On J anuar y 20, 2000, judgme nt w as enter ed. The a ppellant, on Marc h 20, 2000, filed an a ppeal of the Dec ember

1999 decision to the U n i t ed States Court of Appea ls for the F eder al Circuit (F eder al Circuit). Th e F e de ra l Cir c uit , in

a n A ug us t 3, 20 01 , o pin ion , d ism iss e d t he app ell ant' s a pp e a l w ith respe ct to claim 1, stating that it is precluded by statute from re viewing the fa ctual dete rminations of the B oard or

this Court. Sanchez-Benitez v. Principi , 259 F .3 d 135 6, 13 63 (F e d. Cir . 200 1) . With respe ct t o cl ai m 2, the Fe dera l Circuit stated that, beca use this Court had made a fac tual deter mination reg arding an issue that the B oard ha d not addre ssed in its J uly 1997 decision, it was vacating this Court' s Dec ember 1999 decision with r espec t to that claim. The F eder al Circuit then rema nded cla im 2 to thi s Court with inst ructions for this Court to remand that claim to the Boa rd for "redet erm in ati on ." Id . at 1363. I n rende ring its decision on claim 2, the Fe dera l Circuit stated that re mand ingthat c la im t o th e B oa rd wa s n e c e ssa

ry in ord er for th e B oa

rd to d e te rm ine , in

the fi rs t instance, whether

38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)( 1) should be conside red w hen adjudicating that c laim. Id

. at 1362-63; see 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)( 1) (2000) (" Gene ral rating c onsiderations" for c ompensation c la ims in e xce pti on a l c a se s) ; see also W inters v. Gober , 219 F.3d 1375, 1379 ( Fe d. Cir. 2000) (Court of Ap pe a ls f

or Ve te rans Cl aims sho uld

no t de c ide iss ue un til B oa rd ha s ma de de te rm inatio n w ith re sp e c t to it an d it is " pr op e rl y pr e se nte d on ap pe a l" ). On Se pte mbe r 24, 20 01 , the F e de ra l Cir c uit issued mandate. Be cause the Fe dera l Circ uit r emande d claim 2 to this C ourt with instructions that this Court re mand that c la im to the B oa

rd , the Court wi ll va c a te the July 19 97 B oa

rd de c isi on wi th r e sp e c t to c la im 2 a nd

re mand that matte r fo r re a dju dic a tio n co ns ist e nt w iththi s o rd e r a nd the F e de ra l Cir c uit opinion. On remand, the appellant is fr ee to su b m i t ad d i t ional evidenc e and a rg ument on the2

re mand ed cla im in a c c or da nc e wi th Kut

sc he ro us k yv . W est , 12 Vet.App. 369, 372- 73 (1999) ( per curiam order) . The B oard sha ll p ro ceed expeditiousl y , in acc ordanc e with sec tion 302 of the Veter ans' Be nefits I mprovement Act, Pub. L

. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 46 4 5 , 4 6 5 8 (1 994) (found at 38 U.S.C. § 5101 not e) (re quiring Secre tary to provide for

"e x peditious treatment" of claims rema

nded by Boa rd or Court). On c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is ORDERED that the B oard' s J uly 3, 1997, decision with r espec t to claim 2 is VACATED and that matter is REMAND ED to the Boa rd for rea djudication consistent with this order and the Fe dera l Circuit opinion. DA TE D: No ve mbe r 6 , 2 00 1 PER CU RI AM

.