NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ILENE M. RICHARDSON,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-7144

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-232, Judge William Greenberg.

______________________ 

Decided: October 28, 2014

______________________ 

KENNETH M. CARPENTER, Carpenter, Chartered, of 

Topeka, Kansas, argued for claimant-appellant. 

SARAH M. VALENTI, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department 

of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondentappellee. With her on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, 

Assistant Attorney General, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., 

Director, and MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., Assistant Director. 

Of counsel on the brief were DAVID J. BARRANS, Deputy 
2 RICHARDSON v. MCDONALD

Assistant General Counsel, and BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of 

Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

George T. Richardson, a veteran who served on active 

duty from June to August 1935 and again from September 

1942 to July 1944, died on September 20, 2012, while his 

claim for benefits was pending before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) on remand. Shortly thereafter—on September 26, 2012—the Board dismissed Mr. 

Richardson’s case due to his death. Ilene M. Richardson

appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court 

of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). The 

Veterans Court ordered counsel to show cause why the 

appeal of the Board’s decision should not also be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In response, counsel 

argued, among other things, that Mrs. Richardson was 

entitled to be substituted as appellant in place of her 

deceased husband pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5121A. The 

Veterans Court dismissed Mrs. Richardson’s appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. In its decision, the court cited VA 

Fast Letter 10-30 dated August 10, 2010, which provided 

that an eligible survivor may file a request with the 

agency of original jurisdiction to be substituted in place of 

the original claimant. Mrs. Richardson now appeals from 

the Veterans Court’s dismissal. 

After careful consideration, we agree with the Veterans Court that it lacked jurisdiction over Mrs. Richardson’s appeal. As counsel for the government conceded at 

oral argument, however, Mrs. Richardson’s timely notice 

of appeal of the Board’s September 26, 2012 decision 

qualifies as an informal claim for substitution under 

§ 5121A which she is entitled to have adjudicated. Oral 
RICHARDSON v. MCDONALD 3

Argument at 13:25-14:10, available at http://www.cafc.

uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/2013-7144/all (Q: 

“Do you regard the notice of appeal that Mrs. Richardson 

filed as an informal claim or motion for substitution?” . . . 

A: “It’s our position that under Reeves it would be an 

informal claim.”); see Reeves v. Shinseki, 682 F.3d 988, 

993 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Because Mrs. Reeves’ motion for 

substitution clearly evinced an intent to obtain the benefits due and payable to her husband as of the date of his 

death, it qualifies as an informal claim for accrued benefits.”); see also Kelsey v. West, 13 Vet. App. 437, 438 (Vet. 

App. 2000) (stating that a notice of appeal, which contained notice of the veteran’s death, constituted “an 

informal, derivative, claim for accrued benefits, which 

[the surviving spouse] is entitled to have adjudicated”). 

Upon adjudication of her request, Mrs. Richardson’s claim 

or request for substitution may proceed before the Board 

without loss of priority. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Veterans Court dismissing Mrs. Richardson’s 

appeal.

AFFIRMED