UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 02-1077
L I Z Z I E M A Y FI ELD , A PP EL L ANT ,
V
. R. J A M ES N I C HOL S ON , 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 GREENE, Chief Judge , and KASOL D and MOO RMAN, Judges

. O R D E R
In the May

23, 2002, decision on appea l, the Board of Veter ans' Appea ls (Boa rd) de termined that the not ice requireme nts of 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) had been s atisfied. On April 14, 2005, this Court aff irmed the B oard' s decision, holding, in pa rt, that a pre decisional doc ument in t h e re co rd not d is c u s s e d b y th e B o ar d s ati s f ie d th e r e qu ir e me n ts o f s e c ti o n 5 1 0 3 (a)

. S ee M ayfield v. Nicholson , 19 Vet.App. 103 ( 2005) [hereina fter Mayfield I ]. On April 5, 2006, the U.S

. Court of Appe als for the Fe dera l Circuit (Fe dera l Circuit) reve rsed Mayfield I and re manded the mat ter for further proce eding s consistent with its decision. See Mayfield v. Nicholson , 444 F.3d 1328,1333- 34, 1336 (F e d

. Ci r
. 2 0 0 6 )

. T h e F e d e r a l C ir c u it in s tr u c te d th at, b e c a

u s e th e d e te r

mi n ati o no f

w h e th e r the prede cisional document satisfied the Secre tary ' s notice oblig atio n "w as a substantially fac tual deter mination of the ty

pe that should have been ma de by the ag ency

in the first instance," this Court "sho ul d h ave r em and ed t he cas e to th e Board ." Id. at 1334-35 (a lso stating that " VA could have substantially

complied with the VCAA by issuing a f

ully compliant section 5103 notification bef ore rea djudicatingMrs. May field' s claim" ).
In light of the Fe dera l Circuit's deter mination that this Court made a fac tual findingfrom the rec ord that should ha

ve been made by the Boa rd in the first instance, the Court will remand to the Boa rd the que stion of whether the appe llant was p ro v i d ed p rea djudicatory notice that fulfills the require ments of sec tion 5103(a) a nd 38 C.F.R . § 3.159(b) ( 2005). See id. at 1336 (" As we ha ve emphasized, whethe r Mrs. Mayfield rec eived a ppropriate notice is an issue that should be a ddresse d by the a g e nc y

in t he fi rs t in sta

nc e , und e r t

he pr op e r l e g a l st and ard . T hat ha s no t y e t ha pp e ne d in thi s case .") . The Court will retain jurisdiction. Com pa reZe v alk

ink v . B ro wn , 102 F.3d 1236, 1244 ( Fe d. Cir. 1996) (sug g estingrema nd to Boa rd of que stion whether third pa rty qualifies as an ac crue dbenef its beneficia

ry ), and Erspamer v. D erwinski , 1 Vet.App. 3, 11- 12 (199 0 ) (C o u rt reta ins jur isd ic tio n o ve r p e tit ion fo r e xtra or din ary

re lie f i n th e natur e of

a wr it of man dam us until it i s deter mined whether the Secre tary adher ed to time lines for claim proc essing ), with Cle ar yv . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 3 0 5 , 3 0 7 -08 (1995) (" the Court proper ly could not have r etained jur isdiction over the reve rsed [Board] decision while the matter was being readjudicated " (emphasis added)). Given the l i m i t ed n at u re o f this remand, it is appropr iate to set a r esponse time. Se eGA O v . G AO Pe rs.2

Appeals Bd. , 6 98 F .2 d 5 16 , 5 35 -3 6 (D.C

. Ci r. 19 83 ) ( re mand ingfo r c on sid e ra tio n o f c e rt a in qu e sti on s and se tti ng

90 -d ay re sp on se tim e ); Battle v. Anderson , 594 F.2d 786, 793 ( 10th Cir. 1979) (re taining jur isdiction, remandingfor a dditional factfinding , and dire ctin g r e s p o n s e b y

s p e cific date). Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is
ORDERED t hat t he matter is rema nded for a li mited purpose. On r emand, a fter a ffor ding the appe llant an opportunity to be hea rd on the que stion of whether or not the notice unde r sec tion 5103(a) and § 3.159(b) was suff icient, the B oard sha ll determine whe ther or not the Sec reta ry provided pre adjudi ca t o ry notice that complies with the re quirements of se ction 5103(a) and § 3 .1 59 (b ). Th e re a ft e r, the B oa rd sh a ll p ro vid e a

su pp le me nta l st ate me nt of r e a so ns or ba se s in support of its determination that notice w as or wa s not sufficient. It is further
ORDERED that the Secr etar y , not later than 60 day s afte r t he date of this order, pr ovide the C o urts u ch s up p l e m en t al s t at em en to f t h e B o ar d

. R egard l es s o f t h e o u t co m e o f t h e B o ar d 's de te rm inatio n o n th is q

uest io n, the B oa

rd sh a ll n ot t ake any

fu rt he r a c tio n b e yon d th e re sp on se require d by

this order unless a

nd until the Court relinquishes jurisdiction over the matter.
DA TE D: June 15 , 2 00 6 PER CU RIAM

.