UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O

. 03-981

J OHN R. G AL L AGH ER , 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 FARL EY, I VERS, and STEI NB ERG, J

ud ge s.

O R D E R

On September

26, 2003, in a sing le-judg e order, the Court dismiss ed Mr. Gallag her' s appea l of the Fe bruar

y 14, 2003, denial of rec onsideration of a n Aug ust 16, 1985, decision of the B oard of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls ( B VA o r Board ) for la c k o f j ur isd ic tio n. On

Oc tob e r 1 6, 20 03 , th e a

pp e lla nt, throug h counsel, filed a

motion for rec onsideration or, in the a lternative, f or a pa nel dec ision.

Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , a

nd the pa rt ie s' pr ior

ple a din g s, it i s

ORDE RED , b y

the sin g le jud g e , th a t th e mot ion fo r r e c on sid e ratio n is de nie d. I t is

ORDERED, by

the pane l, that the motion for a pane l decision is denied.

DA TE D: De c e mbe r 3 0, 20 03 PER CU RI AM

.

STEI NB ERG, Judge , dissenting: B ased on the following three rea sons, I voted to grant the appellant' s motion for a panel decision: (1) The single -judg e orde r issued on September 26, 2003, did not address the a

ppellant' s principal argument that on J une 24, 2002, he ha d filed a motion for revision base d on clea

r and unmistakable error (CUE) (hereinaf ter motion for CUE re vision) and not a motion for B oard of

Veteran s ' Ap p ea ls (BV A or B oard) rec onsideration (Aug ust 21, 2003, Response (Aug . Resp.) at 2-3; Se p t em b er 22, 2003, Response (Sept. Resp.) at 2-3); (2) the BV A Deputy Vice Cha irman' s mischara cter ization of the appellant' s motion for CUE revision as a motion fo r r e c on sid e ratio n ( F e br ua ry 14 , 2003, L e tte r ( L e tte r) a t 1- 2) ins ulate d a n o the rw ise re vie wa

ble matter fr om judicial review ; a nd (3) the appellant was unfairly prejudice d by the B VA De puty

Vice Cha ir man' s a c tio ns

.

As a star ting point, I ag ree with the deter mination in the Court's Septe mber 26, 2003, orde r that the appe llant's N otice of A ppeal (NOA) cannot, unde r Ma y e r v . B ro wn , g ive this Court jurisdiction to review the B VA De puty Vice Cha irman' s Fe bruar y 14, 2003
, l ett er he re on dire ct appea l as a de nial of a moti o n for reconsider ation of a 1985 B VA dec ision. Maye r , 37 F.3d 618,2

619-20 ( Fe d . Cir. 1994) (conc luding that Court may revie w dec isions by

(or on be half of) BV A Chairman under 38 U.S.C. § 7261 only "where it a lrea dy has jurisdiction by virtue of a

timely appea l from a final board decision" beca use section 7261 "doe s not independently g rant jurisdiction over such ac tions"). How ever , Istrong ly believe that the following matters also ne ed t o be addr essed. First, the a

ppellant had a rig ht to have the Court addr ess his argument, as pre sented in his Aug ust 21, 2003, response to the Secre tary ' s J uly 30, 2003, motion to di smiss and his S eptember 22, 2003,

re s p o n s e to the Court' s Aug ust 22, 2003, show-ca use orde r, that he ne ver f iled a motion for

rec onsideration. Aug . Resp. at 2-3; Sept. Resp. at 2-3. Neither the C ourt' s September 2003 or der nor the Court' s decision her e re g ardingthe appe llant's O ctober 16, 2003, motion for rec onsideration

or a lte rn a tiv e mot ion fo r a pa ne l de c isi on a dd

re sse d thi s iss ue that is a

bs olute ly fu

nd a me nta l to thi s
case

. Second, the B oard mischarac terized the appellant's J une 24, 2002, "Motion for Revision of Dec isions Based O n [(CUE)]" as a motion for rec onsideration whe n, in fac t and in law, it was not

on e : N ot o nly

is i t sty le d a s a

mot ion fo r C UE re vis ion , b ut i t is ex pres sl y fi led " purs ua nt t o [38 C .F.R. §§] 20.1404 [ and] . . . 20.1403 [ (2002)]" unde r " Subpart O-Revision of De cision on Grounds of [CUE]" and spec ifically ref ers to CUE at lea st eig ht times withi n the c ourse of the 11-pag e mot ion. The appellant states once in the m otion that he " reque sts reconsider ation" of the Aug ust 1985 BVA decision (Motion ( Mot.) at 1), but the wor ds "motion for r econside ration" appea r nowher e in his motion, see Mot. at 1-11, and the motion cont ai n s no ref ere nce to De partment of Veter ans Af

fairs ( VA) r egulations under " Subpart K-Rec onsideration" in part 20, title 38, of the Code of F eder al Regulations, see Mot. at 1-11. I f the Boa rd had found any

ambiguity

in the motion as to its classification (a

nd Ifind no rea sonable ambiguity in it), surely the Board ha d an oblig ation to resolve that ambiguity in the veter an' s favor

as a m o t i o n fo r C UE re vision, see 38 U. S.C. § 5107(b) ( "[w]hen there is an approximate balanc e of positive and neg ative evide nce r eg ardingany issue mate ri a l to the de te rm inatio n o f a matte r, the Se c re tary

sh a ll g ive the be ne fi t of

the do ub t to the claimant" ); howeve r, neither the B oard in re fer

ring the matter to the B VA Deputy Vice Cha irman nor the De puty

Vice Cha irman in his Febr uary 2003 letter a ddresse d such an ambig uity or sec tion 5107(b).

Th ir d, ha d th e B oa

rd pr op e rl y

pr oc e e de d w ith

the mot ion

fo r C UE re vis ion

un de r 3 8 U .S. C. § 7 1 1 1
, it s d e c is io nw o u ld b e s u b je c t t o ju d ic ia l r e view, s ee Jordan v. Princ ipi , 17 Vet.App. 261, 266 (2003) ( stating that "[ p ] u rs u an t t o section 7111, this Court has jurisdiction to review a B VA dec i s i o n t h at considere d a cla im asserting CUE in a pre vious BVA de cision if that claim was pending on or af

ter Nove mber 21, 1997" ), whe rea s the Depu t y Vi ce Chairman' s Fe bruar y 2003 action is not review able a s a denia l of rec onside ration, see M ayer , su pra . I n the opinion for a unanimous en banc Court in Sm ith ( Ge or ge ) v . B ro wn , J udge I v er s wrote the following r eg arding

an a na log ou s u se of

B VAre c on sid e ratio n to de fe a t ju dic ia l r e vie w i n th is C ourt :

Mo re ov e r, to a c c e pt t

he Se c re tary' s in te rp re tatio n o f [V e te ra ns ' J udicial Review A ct] § 402 and section 7103 [of title 38, U.S. Code,] would cause this Court's jurisdiction to t u rn o n the dec isions of the Cha i rm an and the BV A. Cf. C.R . B ar d, In c . v . S

c hwa rtz , 716 F.2d3 874, 877-78 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ( Fe dera l Circuit holds t hat, as a rbiter of its own jurisdiction, i t must have the powe r t o decide whether lower court ha s jurisdiction and to decide that question i n d epende nt of conclusion re ache d by

that lower c ourt). The result of such a n outcome would allow our jurisdiction to "' float in the air' to be seized by [ th e lo wer] tr ib un al a t an y ti me. " Cerullo [ v. De rwinski ], 1 Ve t

. Ap p

. [ 1 9 5 , ] 1 9 7 [ (1 9 9 1 )] (q u o t i n g Cochran v. Birke l , 651 F.2d 1 2 1 9
, 1 2 2 2 (6 t h C i r

. 1 9 8 1 ) ( qu o t i n g Ruby v . Secre tary of the Navy
, 365 F.2d 385, 388- 89 (9th Cir. 19 66) (e n banc)
, cert. de nied
, 386 U.S. 1011 (1967)))

. The BVA Chairma n could otherw ise defe at the rig ht to judicial review at a critica l junc ture in a case by order ing

rec onsideration of a prior decision which is be y ond the re ach of that ri g ht.

Smith ( George ) , 8 Ve t.A

pp . 5 46 , 5 52 (1 99 6) (e n ba nc ). Th e a

bo ve re a so nin g fr om Smith ( George ) applies fully

to the instant situation, and I believe that the Court's September 2003 or der c ompounds the e rr or of the B VADe puty

Vi c e Cha ir

man b y ig no ri ngthe a

pp e lla nt' s c on te nti on , whi c h is no t on ly entitled to the Court's consideration but is a lso c lear ly corr ect, that he never

filed a motion for B VA

rec onsideration.

I s ee at l ea s t two alternatives to the Court's tre ating this case a s an appe al of the Fe bruar y 2003 Deputy Vice Chairman' s letter that construe d the appe llant's motion for CUE r evision as a motion for B VA re consideration, and dismiss ing it under Maye r , su pra . T he Court , e ith e r i n denying a panel de cision, or, as I would pref er, in g ranting one, could have note d, analog ously to the action take n in Tab laz on v . B ro wn , that the motion for CUE re vision was misconstrued as a motion for r econside ration, t hat t he mot ion for CUE revision remains pending befor e the Boa rd, and that the Court expects it t o be adjudica ted expeditiousl y

in acc ordanc e with its J une 24, 2002, plac e in line. Tablazon , 8 Vet.App. 359, 361 ( 1995) (c oncluding that appellant' s claims wer e " still open" (and thus not subject to Court review) beca use " BV A er

roneously treated that rating de cision as final a nd require d new a

nd materia l ev i d en ce to reope n the appe llant's c laim of entitlement to service

connec tion for osteoar

thritis and/or g outy arthritis" ). A s econd alternative would be for the Court to i ssu e a pa ne l or de r ( 1) c on str

uin g the NO A h e re a s in c lud inga pe tit ion fo r e xtra or din ary

re lie f i n t h e n at u re o f awr i to f m an d am u s t o b ri n g ab o u ta r ev i ew ab l e B o ar d d ec i s i o no nt h e ap p el l a n t 's motion for CUE revision and ( 2) direc ting the Sec reta ry to fi l e an an s wer. The pane l, however
, c ho se no t to purs ue the se a lte rn a tiv e a pp ro a c he s.
Finally , the Fe bruar

y 2003 BV A Deputy Vice Chairman' s letter noted that the appellant ha d

ra ise d a CU E a rgume nt a nd state d: " Th e mot ion fo r re vie w ba se d on CU E in a B oa rd ' s de c isi on

is differ ent from a

mo t i o n fo r reconsideration." L etter at 2. The De puty Vice Cha irman then deter mined (1) that under § 3.343 " rec ent" VA examination reports a nd medical r ecor ds had demonstr a te d

" ' s o me im

p r o v e me n t' " an d

( 2 ) th a t t h e B o ar d h a d " a d dr e s s e d

th e a p p r o p r iate r a ti ng reduc tion and considered the rea sonable doubt doctrine ". Ib id .; see 38 C.F .R. § 3 .3 43 (2 00 3) . T his conclusion lac ks an ade quate state ment of re asons or ba ses and ha s been insul at ed fr o m judicial4

revie w as pa

rt of the BV A Deputy Vice Chairman' s letter that purported to be decidinga motion for BV A re consideration. Fur thermore
, pursuant to § 20.1405(d), a motion for CUE revision is to be decide d by the Boa

rd and not by the BV A Deputy Vice Cha irman. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1405(d) (2003).

Although I

rec og nize that the appellant may fil e with the Boa

rd anothe r motion for CUE revision as to the 1985 B VA dec ision, I believe ( 1) t hat i t would be unfair for him to have to lose the 16 months that have passe d since he first filed his motion for CUE re vision – because he would have to go to the ba ck of the line and start the CUE proce ss over a g ain – and ( 2) that the Court should, authoritatively i n a pre cede ntial action, re ject the B VA De puty

Vice Cha irman' s arbitra ry misconstruction of a ve ry clea r and e x plicit moti on for CUE r evision as a motion for B VA

rec onsideration. The unfair a nd unfortunate eff

ect of this mischarac terization, sustained by the Court, has bee n the denial to the a ppellant of the a

vailability

of judicial re view of a

sectio n 7111 B oa rd de c isi on on a CU E cla im. 38 U. S.C. § 7 11 1; see Sm ith ( George ) and Tablazon , both su

pra

.