UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O

. 99-1144
R OB E R T W. B EST , 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, HOL DAWAY, and IVERS, Judges

.

O R D E R
I n a s i ngl e- j udg e o r de r of M ar c h 22, 200 1, the Cour t r em an de d t h e M ar c h 31, 199 9, deci si on of

th e B o ard o f V et er ans' A ppea l s ( B V A or B oar d) that denied ent i tl em ent

t o an effective d ate e arlier tha n July 1 6 , 1 9 9 0 , for a total (1 0 0 % ) d isa b ilit y ratin g for po st- tra u m atic
s t r e s s d i s o r d e r . Th e Cou r t f o un d tha t

a r e m a nd wa s r e q ui r e d i n l i g ht o f the r e c e nt

e na c t m e nt of the Vet er ans C l ai m s A s s i s t anc e A c t of 200 0 ( V C A A ) , Pub. L. N o. 106
- 475 , 114 St at . 209 6 ( N ov. 9, 2000). O n A pr i l 3, 2001, the appe l l ant f i l ed a t i m el y m ot i on f

or r econsi der at i on or p a ne l d e c i s i o n. I n h is m o tio n , th e a p p e ll a n t c o n t e n d s , in te r a li a , th a t th e C o u rt e rr e d in fa il in g to c ons i de r the o theral l eg at i ons of er r or m ade by t

he a pp el l ant

whi c h wer e u nr el at ed t o t he V C A A

. Th e appel l ant sugges t s that the C our t shoul d consi der other al l egat i ons of er r or , even i f they would c al l f

or no gre at er r em edy than a re m and, and even i f the ul t i m at e di spos i t i on of th e c as e is a re m an d req u ired b y th e V C A A ' s pa ssa g e. H e rea so n s th at th e e rrors a lleg ed are cap abl e of

r epet i t i on on r em and, and st at es t hat the f act that he m ay r ai se those al l egat i ons of
erro r be fore th e B o ard o n rem an d "is o f n o co m fort o r va lu e to th e a pp ella n t ."
F ro m th e outse t, i t ha s b e e n th e pr a c tic e of thi s Court that wh e n a re mand is o rd e re d b e c a us e of an undoubte d err or t hat requires such a reme dy , the Court will not, as a g ener al rule, a ddress other putative er

rors ra ised by

the appe llant. See Du nn v . W est , 1 1 Ve t

. Ap p
. 4 6 2 , 4 6 7 (1 9 9 8 ) ( th e C o urt 's re mand of the a pp e lla nt' s PTSD c la im un de r on e the or y moo te d the re ma ini ngthe or ie s th a t w ou ld
a lso mand a te a re mand of that c la im) ; c

f. Aron so n v . B ro wn , 7 Ve t.A pp . 1 53 , 1 55 (1 99 4) ; Mokal v

. Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 12 (1990). In most case s, wher e the Court vacates a dec ision of the Boa rd
an d r e ma n d s th e matt e r

f o r r e a d ju d ic a ti o n , a

d is a g r e e me n t a s to an y

o f th e a ll e g e d

e r r o r s in that decision will be re ndere d moot because the B oard is re quired to re adjudicate t he matter anew
. Fletche r v. De rwinski , 1 Ve t

. Ap p
. 3 9 4, 397 (1991) ( "Arema nd is meant to entail a c ritical examination of the justification for the dec ision. The Court expects that the BVAwill reexamine the e vid e nc e of re c or d, se e k any oth e r ev ide nc e the B oa rd fe e ls is nec e ssa

ry , an d issu e a

tim e ly , w e llsupported dec ision in t his case" ).2

Moreove r, other c ourts regularly decline to a ddress the rema ining alleg ations of err or if the c ourt or de rs a re man d and new tr ial b a se d o n a ny on e a lle g a tio n o f e rr or . T he c ourt s d o th is routinely , even if the alleg ation of err or is theore tically capa ble of re petition at the new tria l that the appellant will receive, such as a jury instruction or evidentiar

y ruling

. See, e .g., United States v. Shipsey , 190 F.3d 1081, 1088- 89 (9th Cir. 1999) (bec ause the court held that the district court e rre d by constructively

amendingthe theft c ounts in the indictment, re quiring reve rsal and a rema nd for a ne w tri a l, t

he c ourt ne e d n ot r e a c h th e a

pp e lla nt' s r e ma ini ngc ha lle ng e s) ; U m p l e byv . P ott e r & Brumfield, Inc. , 69 F.3d 209, 215 (7th Cir. 1995) (" Whil e ther e we re ma ny proce dural proble ms that occur red be low, including the arguably err oneous admission of much evide nce, w e nee d not rea ch the se i ss ues in li ght of o ur de c isi on to r e mand

fo r a ne w tri a l" ); United States v. Y oung , 17 F.3d 1201, 1205 n.9 (9th Cir. 1994) (" Be cause we f ind that [t he appellant] is entitled to a new trial, we ne e d no t r e a c h h is c la im that th e dis tr ic t c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in

re fu sin g to h e ar h is m oti on to suppress the e vidence fo u n d i n h i s t ruck. . . . [The a ppellant] may

rene w his claim on rema nd") ; Dakota Industries, Inc . v. Ev er Best Ltd. , 28 F.3d 910, 914 ( 8th Cir. 1994) (" In light of our reve rsal and orde r of a new trial, we ne ed not consider [t he appe llant's] arguments of other jury instruction and trial e rror s")

. S i m i l ar l y , i nth e p re s en tca s e, wh er e t h e ap p el l an t 's cl ai mwa s re m an d edd u e t o th e V C AA 's pa ssa g e , th e Court c le arl y ne e d not, no r ha s it in the pa st, c on sid e r oth e r t he or ie s w hic h w ou ld a lso wa rr ant a re mand . T he Court ' s p ra c tic e of lim iti ngits op ini on s to t he is sue n e c e ssa ry to e ff e c t a re mand is c on sis te nt w ith the jur isd ic tio na l st a tut e un de r whic h th e Court op e rate s. Th a t st a tut e states that "in any action broug ht unde r this chapter, the Court of Appea ls for Ve tera ns Claims, to the ex tent nece

ssary to its decision and whe n pre s ented sha ll . . . (1) dec ide all questions of law." 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a) (empha sis added). O f c o ur s e , wi thi n the s t a tut o r y d e f i ni t i o n o f " t o the e x t e nt ne c e s s a r y , " the r e m a y be a p p r o p r i a t e c i r c ums t a nc e s tha t wou l d c a us e the Cou r t , i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n, to to u c h u p o n a n o th e r i s s u e , w h e th e r r a is e d b y th e a p p e ll a n t o r n o t. Th e C our t

di sa gr ees w i th the appel l ant ' s a ss er t i on t hat the abi l i t y t o r ai se a l l egat i ons of
erro r be fore th e B o ard o n rem an d is "o f n o v alu e." T h e a pp ella n t forge t s tha t

if th is C o u rt

w ere t o r ul e a g a i ns t

hi m r e g a r d i ng tho s e a l l e g a t i o ns o f e r r o r , he wou l d be f o r e c l o s e d f

r o m a s s e r t i ng them bef or e the B oar d on r em and. A narrow d ec isio n pre ser ves f or the appel l ant

an oppor tun i t

y t o ar gue those cl ai m ed er r or s bef or e t he B oar d at

the r eadj udi cat i on, and, of cour se, b e f o r e th i s Co u r t

i n a n a p p e a l , s h o u l d th e Bo a r d r u l e a g a i n s t h i m. M or eo ve r , i f

thi s C our t wer e t o " l ay do wn the l aw" as the a pp el l ant s ug ge s t s , give n the di f f er ent cont ext , f

act ual l y and le gal l y , i n w hic h the n ew adj udi cat i on w i l l t ake pla ce , such an opi nion would be not hing m or e than advi sor y , am oun t i ng t o aw ar di ng decl ar at or y r el i ef , w hic h
w e a re n o t

au th o riz ed t o d o . Nag ler v . D er winski , 1 V et . A pp. 297, 306- 07 (1991)

. E ven if w e had ju risd ict ion t o co n sider t h e app ell an t ' s argum en t s ( but see Aronson , supra ) , we m us t be ever m ind f ul of th e "un w isdom of ven turi n g an adv isor y opin ion ." In re Smith , 7 V et .A pp . 89, 94 (1 9 9 4 ) (J

. S t ein b erg , d isse n t in g ); see als o Wate rhouse v. Princi pi , 3 V et.A pp . 4 7 3 , 4 7 4 (1 9 9 2 ) (in
or de r f or ther e t o be a c as e o r c ont r ov er s y , the Cour t " m ust h ave t h e ab i l i t

y t o r es olve the
co n fl ict t h rou g h th e s pe cific relief it pro v id es ").3

F in ally, t h e s t atu t e a n d ca se s c it ed ab o v e w h ich co u n se l ju d ic ial res t rain t are n o t o n ly g o o d la w , b u t a ls o m a k e g o o d , c o m m o n s e n s e . A s n o te d a b o v e , a re m a n d o rd e rs th e B o a rd to adjud icat e the a pp el l ant ' s c as e a new. The ne w adj udi c at i on or de r ed wi l l , nec es s ar i l y , be conduct ed i n an en t i r el y di f f er ent cont ext l egal l y and per haps f

act ual l y as w el l

. Such put at i ve er r or s tha t t h e appe l l ant r ai s ed be f

or e t hi s C our t

c onc er ni ng t

he " ol d" ad j udi c at i on c an be
r ea s s er t ed i f

he s t i l l be l i ev es tha t

the " ol d er r or s " have be en per pe tua t ed and ar e r el ev ant i n the cont e x t o f the ne w a d j ud i c a t i o n. Th e br i e f s be f o r e thi s Cou r t

wi l l , p r e s uma bl y , be avai l abl e. Th e adj udi cat or s m ay then consi der these m at t er s, f or w hat ever val ue they m ay be, i n t he cont ext of the n ew adj udi cati on. I f the appel l ant

st i l l bel i eves er r or has been com m i tt ed, he m ay then pre se n t th at issu e t o th is C o u rt b y w ay o f an ap pe al. See Kut cher ous ky v. Wes t , 12 Vet

. A pp . 369 , 3 7 2 ( 1 9 9 9 )

. T h e C o u rt w il l c o n tin u e th e p ra c tic e it h a s fo ll o w e d , w h ic h is c o n s is te n t w ith its j ur i s di c t i ona l s t at

ut e a nd a pp el l at e p r ac t i c e el s ewher e; we wi l l r ende r ourde c i s i ons on the
n arr ow est

possible groun ds.
U po n co n sid era t ion o f t h e fo reg o in g an d th e re co rd o n ap pe al, it is
O R D E R E D , b y th e s in g le ju d g e, th at t h e a pp ella n t ' s m o t io n fo r re co n sid era t ion is D E N IE D . It

is furthe r OR DE R E D, b y th e p a n e l , th a t th e a p p e l l a n t ' s mo t i o n f o r a p a n e l d e c i s i o n i s DE N I E D.
DA T E D: Ma y 1 5 , 2 0 0 1 P E R C U R I A M.