See U

. S. V ET .A PP
. R U L E 35( c ) ( pr ov i di n g t h at f ul l
- C our t c ons i der at i on i s n ot " g r ant ed unl es s s uc h ac t i on 1 i s n ec es s ar y t o s ec ur e or m ai n t ai n un i f or m i ty of

t h e C ou r t ' s deci s i on s or t o r es ol ve a qu es t i on of exc ept i on al im p o r ta n c e " ).



## UNITE D STATES COURT OF A PPEALS FO R VETE RANS C LAI MS

N O


## . 98- 295
T HO M AS 

## J. K U Z MA 

## , A P P E L L A NT 

## ,
V 

## . ANTHONY 

## J. P RINCI PI 

## , S EC RET AR

Y O F 

## V ETERA NS 

## A FF AI RS 

## , A PPELLEE 

## .

B e fo re K R

A M E R , Chie f Judge , a n d F A R L E Y , H O L D A W AY , I V E R S , S T E I N B E R G , a n d G R E E N E , Ju dge s .

O R D E R
O n Jan u ary 3 1 , 2 0 0 2 , th e C o u rt o rde red th at t

h is m atter w o u ld p roc ee d b efo re the full C o u rt . It is
O R D E R E D that

the C our t ' s J anuar

y31, 2002, or deri s r evoked. Th e m at ter w i l l pr oceed bef or e a pa nel c om pose d of J udges H ol daw ay , I ver s, and S tei nb er g. DA T E D: J u ly1 8 , 2 0 0 2 P E R C U R I A M.
STEI NB ERG, Judge , d iss e nti ng : I c ann ot j oin

in t heCou rt ' s d e c isi on

to r emo ve this c a se from en ba

nc conside ration bec ause I believe that the motion filed by the appellant on June 21, 2002, has ra ised issues that war rant full-Court c onsideration, both bec ause the y i mp l i ca t e the continued viability of this Court' s binding pre cede ntial opinions i n two case s, Hollidayand Karnas , both inf ra , andbecau se they

rai se m att ers of "ex cept io nal impo rt ance". 1


## The a ppellant' s June 21, 2002, motion, which I believe that the full Court should gr ant, see ks le aveto f ilesu pp le me nta l brie fi ngon

thefo llo wi ng

qu e sti on s: 1. Whether . . . VA's duty [-] to[ -]assist regulations issued on August 29, 20 0 1 [ , 66 Fe d. Reg . 45,620, 45,630-32 (Aug . 29, 2001) (t o b e c o d i fi ed at 3 8 C

. F. R

. p t

. 3 )] h av e ap p l i cat i o nun d er th i s C o urt 's holding in Karnas v. Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 308 (1991), to an a ppeal to this C ourt of a pr e-[Veterans Claims Assistance Ac t of 2000, Pub. L . No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000) (VCAA) ]-enactment BVA dec ision where ne ither the Ag ency of Orig inal Jurisdiction norSee als o V A G en. C o un. P rec. 1 1

- 0 0 , p
. 4 (N o v. 27 , 20 0 0 ) [h e r e in a ft e r G .C . P r e c . 1 1
- 0 0 ] (" a ll o f t h e
. . 2

. p ro visi o ns [ o f t he V e t e r a ns C l a i m s A s s i s t a nc e A c t o f 20 00 , Pub. L. N o . 10 6- 47 5, 11 4 St a t . 20 96 ( N o v . 9, 20 00 ) (V C A A ),] a p p ly to c la im s file d o n o r a ft e r N o v e m b e r 9 , 2 0 0 0 , a s w e ll a s to c la im s file d b e fo r e th e n b u t n o t f in a lly 

## 2 the B VA had issued a

decision that h ad b ec o m e fina l and nonappea lable bef

ore that date. 2. Whether, i f the VCAA wer e construed not to authorize retroa ctive a pp lic atio n of its pr ov isi on s (o the r tha n [in] § 7[, which ex pr e ssl y provides for

retroa ctivity

as to § 4' s amendm ents ]), the Secre tary would, never

theless, have had the authority to continue to apply the August 29, 2001, r egulations unde r pre -VCAA a uthority in effe ct on the date of

the issuanceof the re gulations. 3. Whether, if question (2) is answer ed in the af firmative, the Secre tary would also havethe authority to apply those regulations retroa ctively

. 4. Whether the holding s in D ym e nt and Bernklau [, both inf ra ,] articulate a rule of fina lity reg ardingdecisions of this Court which ar e appea led to the Fe dera l Circuit as compare d to the non-finality of d e c i s i o n s a

p p e a l e d t o th i s C o urt , f

r o mth e [ B VA ]

. S p e c i f i c a l l y, whether the dec isions in Dyme nt

and Bernklau can be r ea dt o have implicitl y overr uled this Court's dec ision and equitable doctrine cre ated in Kar

nas [, su pra ]

. 5. W h et h er the princ iples of fundamental fa irness re quire that the Ag ency be estoppe d from eva ding theinterpre tation of the VCAA made by its General Counsel i n i t s prec edential opinion of November

27, 2000, VA Ge n. C o un. Prec. 11- 00 [(Nov. 27, 2000) [hereinaf ter G.C. Prec . 11-00]] . Specifica lly , whether the Ag en c y

can be now a llowed to maintain a diffe rent position i n l i t i g ation befor e this Court [ that] would di rec tly conflict with [ G.C. Prec.] 11-00 that "a ll of the [VCAA] ' s provisions apply to claims filed o n o r af ter November

9, 2000[,] as we ll as [t o] claims filed beforethen butnot fi nal ly deci dedas o f thatdat e." [Ib id

. ]
Motion at 2-3. Notwithstanding this Court' s opinion in Holliday v. Principi , 1 4 Ve t

. Ap p
. 2 8 0 , 2 8 5 (h o l d i n g, inter alia, that all provisions of VCAA wer e re troac tiv el y ap p l i cab le to claims pendingat time of enac tment of VCAA), mo t

. f o r r econs. de nied, 14 Vet.App. 327 (per c uriam orde r), mo t. f or full Court review denied, 15 Vet.App. 21 ( 2001) (e n banc order) , it now appea rs th at th e VC AA no 2d e c i d e d a s o f th a t d a te ").

C ur i ou s l y , t h e B er nkl au opi n i on qu ot ed a pas s ag e f r om L an d gra f v. U SI F i lm P rod u cts , 51 1 U

. S. 24 4, 27 0 3 (1 9 9 4 ) ( "[s] i n c e th e e a rl y d a ys o f th i s C o u rt, w e h a v e d e c l i n e d to g i v e re tro a c ti v e e ffe c t to sta tu te s b u rd e n i n g p ri v a te r i g ht s u nl e s s C o ng r e s s ha d m a d e c l e a r i t s i nt e nt " ) , t ha t w o u l d a p p e a r i na p p l i c a b l e t o t he s i t u a t i o n p r e s e nt e d b y t he V C A A , i n w hi c h t he f e de r a l g o v e r nm e nt i m p o s e d a dd i t i o na l o bl i g a t i o ns o n i t s e lf to w a r d p r iv a te p a r tie s a n d d id
n o t b u r d e n th e r ig h ts o f p r iv a te p a r tie s . B er nkl au v . Pr i nci pi , 29 1 F

. 3d 79 5, 80 4 ( F ed. C i r . 20 02 )

. T h e Su pr em e C o ur t ' s o p i ni o n i n Landgr af s tr e s s e s r e p e a te d ly th e c o n c e r n th a t p r iv a te r ig h ts n o t b e r e tr o a c tiv e ly b u r d e n e d

. See Landgr af, 5 1 1 U

. S

. a t 2 6 5 ("[ e ] l e m e n ta ry c o n sid e ra ti o n s o f f a ir n e ss d i c ta te th a t i n d i v i d u a ls s h ou l d h ave an o p p o r tu n ity to k n o w w h a t th e l a w i s a n d to c o n fo rm th e i r c o n d u c t a c c o rd i n g l y" (e m p h a sis a d d e d )) , 2 8 2 ("[ t]h e i n t r oduc t i on of

a r i g h t t o c om pens at or y dam ages i s al s o t h e t y pe o f l eg al c h ange t h at w oul d h av e a n i m pac t on p r i v a t e p a r t i es' p la n n in g " (e m p h a s is a d d e d )) ; s ee al s o i d. a t 26 6, 27 1, 27 2, 28 4.

66 Fed. R eg
. 45, 620, 45, 630- 32 (Au g
. 29, 2002) ( "D u t y t o A s s i s t " r eg u l at i on s , a men di n g 38 C. F. R. §§ 3. 102, 4 3. 156, 3. 159, 3. 326)

.

Kar nas v. D er w i nsk i , 1 V et

. A pp
. 30 8, 31 3 ( 19 91 ) ( hol di ng t hat "wher e t he l aw or r egu l at i on cha ng es af t er 5

a c l ai m has been f

i l ed or r eopened but bef ore t he adm i ni s t r at i ve or j udi cial appe al pro cess has b een co ncl ud ed , t he
v e rs io n m o [r e] f

avo rable t o [t he] app el l ant s ho ul d

. . . ap p l y unl ess C o ngres s p rovided other wi se or perm i t t ed t he [Secret ary ] t o do other wi se and t he Se cret ary did so" (emp hasi s ad d ed ))

. 

## 3 lon g e r i s r e tr oa c tiv e ly

a pp lic a bleto a c la im de c ide d by the B oa rd be fo re the VC AA ' s e na c tme nt d ate (Nove mber 9, 2000) a

nd on appea l i n th i s C o urtat the time of that e nactment. See D yme nt v. Principi , 287 F.3d 1377, 1385 ( Fe d. Cir. 2002), mot. for en banc re view filed (M ay 3, 20 02 ). In s o concluding , the U.S. Court of Appea ls for the F ederal Circuit (F ederal Circuit) re asoned:

[T] he infe renc e is nearly inesca pable that se ction 3(a) of the VCAA, unlike section 4[, which e xplicitly provides for

retroa ctivity], was not int e nd e d to beg iven re tr oa c tiv e e ff e c t. Ce rt a inl y the re is no thi ngin the statutory

languag e or c ontextthat would o v er come the pr e su mpt ion of no n- re tr oa c tiv ity se t fo rt h b y theSup re me Court

[in Lan dg ra f v . U SI Fi lm Prod

uc ts , 511 U.S. 244, 272-73 (1994)].
Ib id ; cf

. ibid . (stating : "We the re fo re de cline to adjudicate [the] claim in light of thestandard se t forth in sec tion 3(a) . . . , whic h was not ena cted while [the] claim was under consideration by

. . . [VA] .") In Bernklau v . Principi , the F e de ral Circ uit c on c lud e d th at Dyme nt "was p lai nl y corr ect ", be c a us e theSup re me Court

ha s " he ld repe ate dly that fe de ral le g isl atio n is t o b e c on str ue d to avo id retroa ctivity

unless we can dis cer

n clea r congr essional i ntent for that r esult", Bernklau , 291 F.3d 7 9 5 , 8 0 4 (F ed

. C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) ( ci t i n g Landgraf , 511 U.S. at 270). 3


## Ho we v er , i nmy

v i ew , any

o p i n i o nap p l yi n g an d

i nt er p re t i n g Dyme nt and Bernklau sh ou ld be pre cede d by

full briefingon the ef

fec t of these two case s, particula rly briefing as t o whether the VA "D u ty t o Assist" re gulations issued on August 29, 2001, have a pplication under Karnas v. 4 

## Derwinski , to an appe al i n this Court of a pre- VCAA-e nactment BVA decision wher e neither VA 5See 3 8 U .S .C . § § 7 1 0 4 (b ), 7 1 0 5 (c ), 7 2 6 6 ; 6 6 Fed

. R eg. at 45 , 6 2 0 (providi ng, excep t as t o thr ee p rovis i o ns 6

r el at i n g t o r eope n i n g of c l ai ms , t h at"t h e pr ov i s i on s of t h i s f i n al r u l e appl y t o a n y c l ai m f or be n ef i t s r ec ei v ed by V A on
or a f t e r Nov e mb e r 9, 20 00 , a s w e l l a s t o a n y c l a i m f i l e d be f or e t h a t da t e bu t n ot y e t de c i de d by VA a s of t h a t da t e ") ; G. C. P re c . 1 1 -0 0 , su

p ra n ot e 2 ( h ol di n g V CAA g en er al l y a ppl i ca bl e t o "c l ai ms f i l ed bef or e [ N ov embe r 9, 2000, ] bu t n ot f i nal l y de ci d ed as o f

t hat da t e" ).

In t hi s regard, t he C o urt recent l y s t at ed , i n Te t en II : "[ A] t t h e t i me of [ M r
. T et en ' s ] de at h , t h e B V A dec i s i on 7 h ad n ot bec ome f

i n al , bec au s e t h e t i me f

or h i m t o f

i l e a t i mel y a ppea l t o t h i s Cour t u n der 38 U

. S. C. § 7266( a) a n d R osl er [ v. D er w i nsk i , 1 V et

. A p p
. 2 4 1 , 2 4 9 (1 9 9 1 ), ] had no t e xp i red. Fro m that d at e o f de at h i n Jul y 19 9 1 t o t he C o urt ' s January 1995 or der v ac at i n g t h atB V A dec i s i on , t h e den i al of t h e appe l l an t ' s c l ai m r ema i n ed i n a s t at e of n on f i n al i t y
. " Tet en v. Pr i nci pi , 1 6 V e t.A p p . 1 1 2 , 1 1 6 (2 0 0 2 ).

Se e su p ra not e 6. 8

The br i e f

i ng o r de r i n M at l oc k st a t e d t h e i ssu e s a s foll o w s: 9
( 1 ) D o e s s e c t i o n 3 ( a ) o f t he V C A A a p p l y t o t he

cl a i m s i n vo l ve d i n t h i s ca se ? See K ar nas [, s upr a n o te 5 .]

(2 ) D o th e re v ise d V A a d j u d ic a tio n re g u la tio n s , see 66 Fe d. R e g . 45 , 63 0- 32 ( A ug . 29 , 20 01 ) ( t o be c o di f i e d at 3 8 C

. F

. R. p t . 3) ( " D u ty t o A s s i s t " r e g u l a t i o ns ) , a p p l y t o t he
c l a i m s in v o l v e d i n th i s c a se a n d , i f so , u n d e r w h a t a u th o ri ty
w e r e t hos e r e g ul a t i o ns pr o m ul g a t e d?

( 3) I f nei t her V C A A s e c t i o n 3 ( a ) nor t he r e v i s e d V A
a d j u d i c a ti o n re g u l a ti o n s a p p l y to th e c l a i m s in v o l v e d i n th is
c a se , d i d V A h a v e a d u ty to a s s is t o r to n o ti fy in re g a rd to t h o se cl a i m s?
M at l oc k v

. Pr i nci pi ,

_ _ V e t. A p p .

_ _ _ ,

_ _ _ , N o . 0 1
- 6 8 8 , 2 0 0 2 W L 1 3 5 7 3 0 1 a t * 1 (J u n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 2 ) ( p e r c u ri a m o rd e r). 

## 4 nor the B VA had issued a decision that had be com e fi n al and nonappe alable be forethat date . (I 6 

## note that this also raise s the questions whether Karnas rema ins good la w af ter Landgraf

, Dyme nt , and Bernklau , and wh e the r a c la im i s " fi na lly

de c ide d" by

theB VAwh e n it

ha s b e e n a

pp e a le d to thi s Court. ) F urthermor e, brie fingshould also be obtained on whe ther, if the VC AA were c onstrued not

7 

## to a uth orize re tr oa c tiv e a

pp lic atio n o f i ts p ro vis ion s ( oth e r t ha n in se c tio n 7 , whic h e xpre ssl y pr ov ide s f

or re tr oa c tiv ity

a s to se c tio n 4 ), theSe c re tary , n e ve rt hel ess, w ou ld h avethea

uth ority to continue to apply the August 29, 2001, regulations – and, if so, whether the Sec reta ry would have thea uth ori ty to do so re tr oa c tiv e ly a s th os e re gulatio ns prov ide – und e r n on -V CAA a uth ority in 8 

## eff ect on the da

te of issuanc e. See , e.g. , 38 U.S.C. §§ 501, 5103(a), 7722(d) (1994 & Supp. V 1999)

. In Matlock v . Principi , a pane l of this Court very rec ently issued a briefing order

reg arding these Dyme nt , Bernklau , Karnas , and Landgraf issues, which arose in a c ase wherethe B VA decision postdated the e nactment of the VCAA an d prec eded thepromulg ation of the August 29, 2001, regulations. Additionally , in a ca se simil ar to theinstant case insofa r as it involves the appe al 9 

## of a pr e-V CAA BVA dec ision, Irec ently dissented from a

panel de cis i o nto declar e the VCAA inapplicable, a

nd to rejec t briefingon the application of the August 29, 2001, regulations, to suchJ

. B

. St ephens v . Pr i nci pi , _

_ V e t.A p p .

_ _ , N o . 0 0
- 1 5 1 6 , 2 0 0 2 W L

_ _ _ _ _ (J u ly 1 0 , 2 0 0 2 ) ( S te in b e r g , J., 10

c o n c u rri n g i n p a rt a n d d i ss e n ti n g i n p a rt). 

## 5 an a pp e a l. It is tr

uethat th e pa

ne l to wh ic h this c a se is be ing re tur ne d co uld – an d, Iho pe , w ill– 10 

## decideto grant the appe llant's June 21, 2002, motion to provide supplemental briefing . Howeve r, be c a us e Ibe lie vethat th e qu est io ns raise d b y thea pp e lla nt a nd by my state me nt h e rearemos t a pp ro priate ly

de c ide d b y

the fu ll Cour

t, I vo te d to ke e p th is c a seat th e e n b anc le ve l so that th e fu ll Court would rec eive briefing by the parties to this caseas to the applica bility of the VCAA a

nd the eff ect of the issuanceof the August 29, 2001, regulations in view of the Fe dera l Circuit's opinions in Bernklau and Dyme nt , both su pra , and of this Court's opinions in Hollidayand/or Karnas , b oth
su pra , on a ca se appe alinga pre -VCAA- enac tment BVAdecision.