UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 99-1271 P A U L E. LUYSTER , A PP EL L ANT ,

V . H ER SH EL W. G OBER , A C TI NG 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 F ARL EY and H OL DAWAY, J ud ge s. O R D E R On Aug ust 29, 2000, this Court affirmed a May 5, 1999, Boa

rd of Ve tera

ns' Appea ls (Boa

rd) decision which ha d denied as not well g rounded the appellant' s claim for se rvice connec tion for a bilatera l ey e disability , other than a cornea l scar of t he left ey e and scar s under both ey e lids. The Court's de cision was based upon the B oard' s determination that the r ecor d contained no c ompetent medical ne x us evidenc e. On Septembe r 19, 2000, the a ppellant, throug h counsel, filed a motion pursuant to Rule 35(b) of this Court's Rules of Pra ctice a nd Procedur e for

a pane l decision revoking the Court' s Aug ust 29, 2000, de cision, vacating the Boa rd' s May 5, 1999, decision, and r emanding the matter. Subsequent to the Court' s Aug ust 29, 2000, de cision, the Vete ran' s Claims Assi stance Act of 2000, Pub. L . No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000) [here inafter VCAA], was ena cted. The VC AA , amon g oth e r thi ng s, ame nd e d 38 U. S.C. § 51 07 to e lim inate the we ll- g rou nd ed cl aim re qu ir e me nt. Pur su ant t o s e c tio n 7 (a )( 2) of the VC AA , th a t ame ndme nt t o s e c tio n 5 10 7 is a pp lic a ble to "a ny claim . . . filed be fore the date of the enactment of [t he VCAA] and not final a s of that date." Ac c or din g ly , b e c a

us e the Boar d den ied t

he a pp e lla nt' s c la im a s n ot w e ll g ro un de d, a re mand is require d in order to pr ovide the B oard w ith an opportunity to rea djudicate the a

ppellant' s claim. See ge n e r ally Karnas v. Derwinski , 1 Ve t
. Ap p . 3 0 8 , 3 1 2 -1 3 (1 9 9 1 ) ( wh en l aw o r r egu l at i o nch an ges afte r claim has be en submitt ed, but bef ore a dminist rative or

judicial appea l proce ss has bee n conclude d, law which is most favor able to plaintiff must be a pplied). On re mand, the appe llant is fr ee to submit additional evidenc e and a rgument nece ssary

to the resolution of his claim. K u t s c h e r o u s k yv . W e st , 12 Vet .Ap p. 36 9, 37 2 ( 19 99 ). Th e B oa rd sh a ll proce ed ex peditiously

. See Veter ans' Be nefits I mprovement Act, Pub. L

. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994) (found at 3 8 U. S

. C

. § 5101 note) (r equiringSecre tary to provide for
" e xpe dit iou s tr e a tme nt" of c la ims re mand e d b y

B oa rd or Cou rt ); Dr os k y v . B ro wn , 10 Vet.App. 251, 25 7 ( 19 97 ). Mo re ov er, if th e circ ums tanc e s w arr a nt, the B oa

rd is a uth or ize d a

nd ob lig a te d to r e ma n d th e c la im to th e r e g io n a l o f f ic e f o r f u rth e r d e v e lo p me n t. See 3 8 C.F.R. § 19.9(a) (1999); Littke v . Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 90 ( 1990).Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo rg oin g it i s ORDERED that the appe llant's motion for a panel de cision is gr anted. It is further ORDERED that the Court' s Aug ust 29, 2000, decision in this m atter is withdra wn, the Boa rd' s May 5, 1999, decision is VACATED, a nd this matter is REMANDED for rea djudication. DA TE D: No ve mbe r 2 0, 20 00 PER CU RI AM

.