UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 98-1169
ANTHONY R. S A G N ELLA , A PP EL L ANT ,
V
. T OGO D. W EST , J R ., 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, I VERS, and STEI NB ERG, Judges

. O R D E R On September

22, 1999, the Court, in a sing le-judg e memora ndum de cision, aff

irmed in part the Marc h 16, 1998, decision of the Boa rd of Veter ans' Appea ls ( Boa rd or BV A). On Octobe r 29, 1999, the appellant, throug h counsel, filed a motion for re consideration or a dec ision by a pane l. For the re a so ns that f

oll ow , th e Court

wi ll d e ny the a pp e lla nt' s a lte rn a tiv e mot ion s. I n his moti on for r econside ration, the a ppellant' s primary

assert i o n i s that he wa s never aff orded the opportunity

to c ontest the eff

ective date assig ned to his rating for total disa bility based on individual unemploy ability (TDIU). In response to these ar g uments, the Court r eiterates that the Court has no jurisdiction over the eff ective date for a

TDIU rating be cause there is no jurisdictionconfe rringNotice of

Disag ree ment (NOD ). See Veter ans' J udicial Review Ac t, Pub. L . No. 100-687 § 402, 102 Stat. 4105, 4122 (1988) (found at 38 U.S.C. § 7251 note). Neve rtheless, the Court notes that, to the extent that the appellant is asserting that he wa s not properly provided with notice of

the VAre g ion a l of

fi ce (R O) de c isi on

tha t awa rd e d a TD I U r a tin g and

a ssi g ne d a

n e ff e c tiv e date , it appea rs that the appe llant's TD I U cl aim was re fer red to the RO by

the B oard in its Fe bruar

y 1997 d e c i s i o n ( R e c o r d ( R

. ) a t 3 6 2 ) an d t h a t , a f t e r a s u b s e qu e n td e c i s i o ni nw h i c h t h e R O aw ar d e d a T D IU rating and assigned an effec tive date (R. at 379), the appellant may have be en improper ly

notified that the matter w ould be re turned to the B VA (a long w ith claims that had b ee n re manded by the BV A in its Februa

ry 1997 decision) (R. at 383). I n so noting, howe ver, the Court does not make a ny c on c lus ion s a s to wh e the r t he RO c omm itt e d an y e rr or s in pr oc e ssi ngthe a pp e lla nt' s T DI U c la im, no r d oe s th e Court

make any c on c lus ion s a s to wh e the r, if an e rr or oc c ur

re d, it wou ld re qu ir e the RO now t o provide noti ce of that decision or would permit the pre sent filing of an NOD

. See Mi nd

e nh all v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 271, 274 ( 1994) (RO must mail to appellant dec ision an d n o t i fi ca t ion of pr oc e dura l and

a pp e llate ri g hts ; N OD mus t be fi le d w ith in o ne y e ar f ro m date of

ma ili ng ); Hauck v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 518, 519 ( 1994) (whe re appellant " never rec eived notification of any denial . . . , the one- y ear period withi n which to file an NOD, which commence s with 'the date of mailing of notice of

the re sult of initi al re view or de termination,' did not beg in to run")

. Up o nco n s i d er at i o no f t h e r ec o rdo nap p ea l an d t h e f o re go i n g, i ti s b y

t h e s i n gl e j u d ge2

ORDERED that the motion for re consideration is DENI ED. I t is by the pane l ORDERED that the motion for a de cision by a pane l is DENI ED.
DA TE D: F e br

ua rt y 14 , 2 00 0 PER CU RI AM

.