UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O

. 95-1068 AND N O

. 99-1250

H UGH D. C OX , P ETI TI ONER /A PP EL L ANT ,

V

.
T OGO D. W EST , J R ., S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , R ES PO NDE NT /A PPEL L EE

. S A M U EL M OS L EY , I NTER VE NOR

.

Be fore NEB EKER, Chief Judge , and F ARL EY and STEI NB ERG, Judges

. O R D E R
On Octobe r 2 7 , 1 9 9 5 , at torney Hug h D. Cox (her einaf

ter " the appe llant") filed pro se a pe tit ion fo r e xtra or din ary

re lie f, se e kin g a

sh ow -c a us e or de r a s to (1 ) w hy

the B oa rd of Ve te ra ns ' Appea ls (Boa

rd or B VA) should not issue a f inal decision on the issue of the pay ment of attorne y fe e s to the a

pp e lla nt b y the De pa rtme nt o f V e te ra

ns Af fa ir s ( VA ) p ur su ant t o h is f e e a g re e me nt w ith
a ve te ra n, Sa mue l Mo sle y , a

nd 38 U. S.C. § 590 4( d) and 38 C.F .R. § 20. 60 9( h) ; ( 2) wh y VAsh ou ld not pay him the 20% attorney fee withheld from the veter an' s awa rd of past-due benef

its (less any
a mou nt a lr e a dy pa id t o th e a

pp e lla nt d ir e c tly

by the ve te ra

n) ; and (3 ) w hy VA ' s a c t of

mis take nly havin g dis burs e d th a t 20 % t o th e ve te ra n s ho ul d not be a dju dg e d a n a c t of " ba d f a ith " that w ou ld
war rant sanc tions and attorney fee s pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412( b). I n an August 7, 1997, opinion, thi s Co ur t c on c lud e d th a t it

po sse sse d th e a

uth or ity to iss ue a wr it o f m and a mus un de r t he Al l Wr its Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) , but denied the pe tition because the ap p ell ant had a n alternative reme dy that obviated the ne ed for extraordinary

relief

. In the Matter of the Fe e Agree ment of Cox , 10 Vet.App. 361, 365- 70, 376-77 (1997) ( Fee Agreem ent of Cox ). T h e ap p el l an tap p ea l edt h ro u gh counsel to the U. S. Court of Appe als for the Fe dera l Circuit (Fe dera l Circuit).

On J uly 16, 1998, the Feder al C ircuit expressly upheld t his Court's pow er to issue a writ of mandamus and its jurisdiction to review B oard decisions as to f ee ag ree ments, and conc luded that thi s Co ur t " ha d c or re c tly he ld t hat a wr it o f m and a mus wa s n ot w arr anted b ecause [the a pp e lla nt] had y et t o file [ a Notice of Disagr eeme nt (NOD )]". Cox v . W est , 149 F.3d 1360, 1363-65 (F ed. Cir. 1998). None theless, the Fe dera l Circ uit r emande d the matter to this Court f or rec onsideration of the propriety of issuing the writ bec ause c ounsel for the appellant ha d asser ted d uring oral a

rg ument b ef o re t h e F ed er al C i rc u i tt h at t h e ap p el l an th adp u rs u eds u ch an al t ern at i v e r em ed y b y fi l i n g, subsequent to this Court's August 7, 1997, opinion i n F e e A greem ent of Cox , an NOD with a VA reg ional office (RO) but that VA ha d failed to a djudicate his cla im. Cox , 149 F.3d at 1365-66. On Marc h 24, 1999, afte r this Court had order ed suppl emental briefing that reve aled that the appellant had in fa ct filed two NO Ds and that the VARO ha d issued a Statement of the Case, this Court denied2

the petition for extraordinar y relief

. Cox v . W est , 12 Vet.A pp. 270, 271-72 (1999) (per curiam order ). On May 25, 1999, the appellant filed an application pursuant to the Equal Ac cess to Just ice Act (EAJ A), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), for attorney fee s and expenses in conne ction with his li tigation in t he F e de ra l Cir c uit

and su bs e qu e nt l iti g a tio n in

thi s Co ur t.

On J uly 23, 1999, the appe llant appea led throug h counsel a J une 22, 1999, BV A decision that deter mined that VA wa s not authorized to pay attorney fee s where all past-due be nefits had a lrea dy been pa id. The vete ran ha d participated in the adjudication of that matter bef ore th e Bo ar d

. On J uly 27, 1 9 9 9 , t he Court issued the " Notice of Docke ting" in that appea l case , with copies to the
a pp e lla nt a nd the Se c re tary

. On Au g us t 13, 199 9, the RO se nt a le tte r to the ve te ra n, a dv isi nghim that th e a pp e lla nt h a d f ile d a n a pp e a l and that th e ve te ra

n mig ht int e rv e ne in the a pp e a l pu rs ua nt t o Rule 15 of this Court's Rules of Prac tice and Procedur e (Rules). On September 15, 1999, the veter an fi le d a no tic e of int e nt t o in te rv e ne in t

he a pp e a l.

On Marc h 6, 2000, this panel, then unawa re of the J une 22, 1999, BV A dec ision that is t he subject of the a

ppeal he re, revoke d its March 24, 1999, orde r in the petition case and re instated the petition; dis missed as premature t h e E AJ A application; and or dere d the Secr etar y to file a supplemental m emora

ndum (and supplemental memoranda ever y 60 day s there afte r) advising the Court of the prog ress a

nd timetable fo r co m p l eti on of the VAadministrative proc eeding s in the
o n g o in g a d

ju d ic a ti o n o f th e f

e e
- a g r e e me n t matt e r th a t is th e s u b je c t o f the petition. Cox

v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 364, 366- 67 (2000 ) (per curiam order) . On Marc h 10, 2000, the Secr etar y filed an unopposed motion for re vocation of the Court's Ma rch 6, 2000, or der.

I n view of the J une 22, 1999, BV A decision that completes the B oard' s adjudication of the fe e- agr ee m en tm at t er

t h at i s t h e s u

b j ec to f t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e C o u rt wi l l gra n ti np ar tt h e S ec re t ary 's Marc h 10, 2000, motion but onl y as to the re quirement that the Secre tary file status reports e very 60 da y s a s to VA ' s p ro g re ss a

nd tim e ta ble fo r c omp le tio n o f t

he a dmi nis tr a tiv e pr oc e e din g s.
On Marc h 20, 2000, the Court, in the appea l c ase, or dere d the appe llant to notify the Court as to whethe r he oppose s the veter an' s motion t o intervene . On March 2 4 , 2 000, the appe llant responde d that he does not oppose the vete ran' s motion. On April 28, 2000, the Court consolidated the a pp e a l (No . 9 9- 12 50 ) w iththe pe tit ion (N o. 95 -1 06 8) and

su bmi tte d th e a

pp e a l to thi s p a ne l.

I n view of the veter an' s notice of intent to interve ne, which he is entitled to do under Rule 15 beca use he pa rticipated in this matter be fore the Board, the Court will reca ption the case to include the veter an as intervenor

. I n addition, a lthough the outcome of this c ase has not bee n decide d, the Court has deter

mined that this cas e s h o u l d proce ed bef ore a panel. The Court notes that it has adop te d a p o li c y th a t w h e r e th e " a p p e ll an t" is un r e p r e s e n te d in a c a s e r e f e r r e d to a p an e l f

or a possibly prec edential disposition the Court will s tay pro ce ed i n gs i n that case for the pur pose of allowin g t h e p ro s e appe llant to obtain repre sentation. In re Pane l Referrals in Pro Se Cases , 12 Vet.App. 316 ( 1999) (e n banc or der)

. Although the veter an is an int erve nor and not the a ppellant here , the Court, nonetheless, a pplies to him t he proc edure set forth in In re Pane l Referrals in Pro Se Cases , su pra , and notes that he might wish to c onsider making arr ang ements to obtain repre sentation3

of counse l in this matter. Se e Sn y de r v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 2 4 4 , 2 4 8 (1 9 9 9 ) (per cur iam order ); 7C Charles Allen Wrig ht, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane , Fe der al Pr actic e an d P ro c e du re § 1920, p. 488 (2d ed. 2000) (unless cour t provides otherw ise, " intervenor is treated a s if he we re a

n or ig ina l pa

rt y and ha s e qu a l st and ingwi th t he or ig ina l pa

rt ie s" ). Th e tim e ta

ble se t f or th b e low wi ll thu s p e rm it p os sib le arr ang e me nts fo r r e pr e se ntati o n o f t h e i nt e rv e no r a

nd a ff or d h im the op po rt

un ity to file a brie f in response to the appellant' s Dec ember 17, 1999, brief and the Secr etar y ' s brief due on May 8, 2000.
Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is

ORDE RED that th e c a se is r e c a pti on e d, a s a

bo ve , to inc lud e the ve te ra n a s in te rv e no r. I t is further

OR DE R E D t h at t h e S ec re t ary 's M ar ch 1 0 , 2 0 0 0 , m o t i o nfo r r ev o ca t i o no f t h e C o u rt 's Marc h 6, 2000, order is gr anted in par t and that that orde r is revoke d as to the re quirement that the Secre tary file status repor

ts every 60 day s on the prog ress a nd timetable for c ompletion of the VA administrative proc eeding s. I t is further
ORDERED that, not later than 30 day s afte r the date of ser vice of the Secr etar

y ' s brief on the intervenor , the interve nor may file, and se rve o n t h e ap p el lant and the Sec reta ry , a brie f on any matter involved in the c ombined case s. I t is further
ORDERED that, not lat er than 14 day s after service of any

brief by the interve nor, the appellant a

nd the Secr etar

y may file re sponses to the intervenor ' s brief.

DA TE D: May

5, 20 00 PER CU RI AM

.