UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O

. 99-774
W A LTER W. B UR TON , 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 HOL DAWAY and STEI NB ERG, Judges

. O R D E R
Th e a pp e lla nt, Wal te r W. B ur

ton , a pp e a ls, thr ou g h c ouns e l, a n Apr il 1 99 9 B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Appea ls (Boa

rd) de cision, which denie d incre ased r ating s for he morrhoids an d peric arditis and de te rm ine d th a t ne w a

nd mate ri a l evi de nc e ha d not be e n p re se nte d to re op e n p re vio us ly and fi na lly disallo we d claims for se rvice connec tion for a low ba ck disorder , schizophrenia, and a rash. On Ap ri l 23 , 2 00 1, the Court , in a sing le -j ud g e or de r, re mand e d, a s r e qu ir e d b y the Ve te ra

ns Cla ims Assistance A ct of 2000, Pub. L

. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000) (VCAA), that par t of the de c isi on

of the B oa rd that de nie d c omp e ns a

ble ratin g s fo r h e mor

rh oid s and

pe ri c ard iti s. B e c a

us e the a pp e lla nt d id n ot p re se nt a

rgume nt, in h is b ri e f, on

the iss ue s o f ne w a

nd mate ri a l e vid e nc e to reope n claims of entitlement to servic e conne ction for a low back disorde r, schiz ophrenia , and a rash, the Court deeme d those claims aba ndoned. On May 14, 2001, the appe llant filed a timely motion for rec onsideration or a panel de cision. He f irst submit s that, althoug h he agree s that his c laims f or compensa

ble ratings for

peric arditis and he mor rh oid s sh ou ld b e re mand e d f or c on sid e ratio n of the pr ov isi on s o f t he VC AA , th e Cou

rt sh ou ld
rec onsider its findings a

nd specific ally

order the B oard to address the additional alleg ed def iciencie s h e a s s er t edi nh i s b ri ef

. On No v em b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 0 , t h e C o u rt s en tt o th e ap p el l an ta c o p y o f t h e C o u rt 's miscellaneous or der, In re: Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, 15 Vet.App. 27 (2000) (e n banc order ), rescinded by In re Resc ission of Misc. No. 4-00, 2001 U.S. Vet. App. L EXI S 1010 (Aug . 31, 2001), which invited re sponses b y an y party to any appea l as to the impact of the V CAA on the dispositi on of that appea l. The appellant did not respond to that or der befor e the Court initially ruled
on his c la ims mor e tha

n f our m on ths late r. B e c a

us e the a pp e lla nt d id n ot r e ply

in t he no rm a l c ours e of a pp e llate re vie w to the Se c re tary ' s br ie f that r e qu e ste d a VC AAre mand , h is a c tio n in ra isi ngthi s matter in a mot ion for reconsider ation is ill timed. See id. (" [f] ailure of the opposing party

to file a timely response [t o a motion or other pa per f iled reg ardingthe VC AA u n der this miscellane ous order ] m ay

be conside red that party ' s consent to any action re commended in that motion or other pa pe r" ); c f. B lac k v . W est , 1 1 Ve t

. Ap p
. 1 5 , 1 6 (1 9 9 8 ) (p er cu ri am o rd er ) ( S t ei nb er g, J

. , d i s s en t i n g) (ra ising c ontention for first time at re consideration stag e is normally an "undesira ble pra ctice" that may "hinde r[] the dec ision-making pr ocess" and " raise[] the undesirable spe cter of piec emea l2

l i t i gat i o n '" ( qu o t i n g Fugere v . Derwinski , 1 Ve t

. Ap p
. 1 0 3 , 1 0 5 (1 9 9 0 ))

. W e sh o u l d n o ten co u ra ge the kind of piec emea l liti g ation in which the appe llant here has eng ag ed.
The appellant also asks the Court to rec onsider its finding that his claims pertaining to a low back disorde r, schizophrenia, a nd a ra sh were ab andoned and to rema nd those claims for
re a dju dic a tio n pur su ant to the VC AA

. Th e a pp e lla nt co nte nd s that he did

no t a ba nd on the se iss ue s, but that he did not addre ss these issues in his brief be cause , at t he time, he f elt that the B oard ha d fulfilled its duties to assist and notify under the then exist ing la w with reg ard to those issues. The Court is sy

mpathetic to the fact that the appellant filed hi s brief be fore the ena ctment of the V CAA. Howeve r, ag ain the appe llant did not reply in the normal course of a

ppellate r eview. T he Court notes that three months after the enac tment of the VCAA the Sec reta ry filed a response br ief ra ising the issue of abandonme nt a

nd that the appellant did not exercise his option to file a r eply brief in or der to respond to the Secr etar y ' s argument that the appe llant had aba ndoned his claims. The Court ha s consistently

held that issues not argued in the appe llant 's i n i t ial brief or reply brief a re de emed abandone d. Ford v. Gobe r , 10 Ve t.A pp . 5 31 , 5 35 (1 99 7) ; Bu c k lin ge r v . B ro wn , 5 Vet.App. 435, 436 (1 99 3) ; cf

. He nd e rso n v . W

est , 12 Vet.App. 11, 18- 19 (1998) ( d ee m i n g claims aba ndoned whe re appellant did not addr ess them in initial brief, but asser ted them in reply

brief)

. Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g and

the re c or d o n a

pp e a l, i t is ORDERED, by

the sing le judg e, that the a ppellant 's m o t i on for r econside ration is denied. I t is further ORDERED, by

the pane l, that the appellant' s motion for a pane l decision is denied.
DA TE D: No ve mbe r 8 , 2 00 1 PER CU RI AM

.