UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O . 05-3479

D EA NNA R. P O LOV I CK , A PP EL L ANT ,

V

.

R. J A M ES N I C HOL S ON , 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 KASOL D, L ANCE, and DA VI S, Judges

.

O R D E R

On Dec embe r 7
, 2 0 0 5 , the appe llant filed a Notice of Appe al (NO A) fr om a Novembe r 4, 2005, decision of the Boa rd of Veter ans' Appea ls (B oard) that denied he r cla im for depe ndency and indemnity

compensa tion, accr

ued bene fits, and educ ational assistance bene fits. On Fe bruar y 13, 2006, the Secr etar

y filed a motion to dismiss the instant a ppeal for lack of

jurisdiction, a sserting that a De cembe r 6, 2005, dec ision of the Boa rd, sua sponte, v ac at ed t h e November 4 B oard de cision pursuant to its authority

under 38 C.F.R. § 20.904 (2005). The S ecr etar y provided the Court copies of the De cembe r 6 B oard de cision and the now- vacated Novembe r 4 B oard de cision.

On Fe bruar

y 17, 2006, the appe llant filed throug h counsel a response in oppositi on to the Secre tary ' s motion t o dismiss . The a ppellant states that at the time she f iled her N OA she did not know that the B oard ha d issued a decision on Dec ember 6, 2005. I n support of her opposition t o the S ec re t ar y 's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , t h e ap p el l an tar gu es t h e f o l l o wi n g:

Pr e se ntl y pe nd ingbe fo re thi s Co urt en banc i s Harms v. Nicholson , Vet. App. No. 03-2083. I f the Court we re to de cide in Harms that the Secr eta ry 's regula tion 38 C.F.R. § 20.904 is inconsistent with a specific statute in Titl e 38, that would mea n that the Secr etar

y ' s vacatur of the Nove mber 4, 2005 de cision was not valid. I f the Court were to dismi ss t h i s case befor e the Court issues the de cision in Harms that would leave Mrs. Polovick in a jurisdictional quag mire.

Opposit i o n at 2

. We do not construe the a ppellant' s arg ument as a c halleng e to the validity of § 20.904 and the B oard' s vacatur of the Nove mber 2005 de cision. To the contra ry , nothing in the

a pp e lla nt' s o pp os iti on

su g g e sts that she is in an y wa y a ve rs e to an oth e r opp or tun ity fo r a fa vo ra ble B oa rd de c isi on . T he a

pp e lla nt h a s n ot m ounte d a

n e xplic it c ha lle ng e to the Se c re tary ' s a uth or ity to

vacate the Nove mber 2005 decision and the Secre tary does not sug g est that his actions below we re improper. The appellant hy pothesizes that the Secre tary would proce ed to void its Dece mber 20052

vacatur in response to the Court's potential invalidation of § 20.904. She further hy pothesizes that the Se c re tary

wo uld the n ar g ue tha

t an N OAa s to the No ve mbe r 2 00 5 d e c isi on wo uld be un tim e ly as not within the 120-day appea l period of that de cision, thus preventing her a ppeal.

This Court has adopted the j urisdictional restric tions of the case -or- controve rsy rubric unde r Article I I Iof the Constituti on of the United States. S e e A ronson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 153, 155 (1 99 4) ; Mokal v . Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 13 ( 1990). " When the re is no c ase or controve rsy , or whe n a on ce li ve case or co nt rov ers y beco mes mo ot , t he co urt lac ks ju ri sd ict io n. " Bo nd v . D e rwi ns k i, 2 Vet.App. 376, 377 ( 1992) (pe r cur iam order ). A justiciable c ontroversy is not a differ ence or dispute of a hy

pothetical or abstrac t char acte r; it must be definite and concre te, t ouching the leg al rela tions of parties having adver se leg al intere sts. Ae tna Life In s. Co. v . H awo rth
, 300 U.S. 227, 240 (1 93 7) ; s ee also Ande rson v. U.S.
, 3 4 4 F. 3 d 1 3 4 3
, 1 3 4 9 (F ed

. C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( qu o t i n g Ae tna Life In s. Co. ).

Th e Court

mus t g ra nt t he Se c re tary ' s mo tio n to dis mis s b e c a us e we a re no t pr e se nte d w ith

an ac cepta

ble case or controve rsy over which we could asser t jurisdiction. The a

ppellant' s conce rn that a dis mis sal cou ld c on sti tut e a n e ff e c tiv e ba r t o d ir e c t r e vie w o f t

he de c isi on

be low is m e re ly hy pothetical, not an issue pr edicated on exis ting f act. The Court will not assert jurisdiction over an appea l where the appellant is conce rned a bout what the Court might do in a f uture de cision and wha t the S ecr etar

y might do in response to that decision. More over, it does not appe ar tha t the parties a re in an adversar ial rela tionship. Both sides a re c ontent with the Secre tary ' s Dec ember 2005 vacatur

as they have not pr ovided the Court with any thing to sug g est that the De cembe r 2005 dec ision should be disturbed.

Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is

ORDERED that t he S ecr etar y ' s motion is g rante d and thi s appea l is DI SMI SSED for lack of jurisdiction.

DA TE D: June 8, 20 06 PER CU RI AM

.

KASOL D, Judge , d iss e nti ng : I re sp e c tf ull y dis se n t fr om t he Court ' s d e c isi on

dis mis sin g thi s

c a se on the ratio na le that it do e s no t pr e se nt a c a se or c on tr ov e rs y . T he Se c re tary fi le d a mot ion to dis mis s th is ca se be c a

us e the B oa

rd va c a te d its own de c isi on a da y pr ior to the fi lin g of

thi s a pp e a l, and the appellant opposes the motion. Thus, the validity of the Boa rd' s vacatur is squarely

prese nted,

a nd the Court sh ou ld a dd

re ss i t. A c c or din g ly , I

re sp e c tf ull y dis se nt.