UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O

. 06-2762

N I CH O LA S R I B AUDO , P ETI TI ONER ,

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 , R ES PO NDE NT

.

Be fore GREENE, Chief Judge , and KASOL D, HAGE L , MOORMAN,

L ANCE, DAVI S, and SCHOEL EN, J ud ge s.

O R D E R
The Court g rante d Mr. Ribaudo' s petit i o n for e x traordina ry relief in an opinion issued on J anuar y 9, 2007. Ribaudo v. Nicholson , 20 Vet.App. 552 ( 2007) (e n banc) , appeal filed (F ed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2007) [here inafter Ribaudo ]. Therein, the Court (1) held unlawf ul and orde red r escinde d the Boa rd of Ve tera

ns' Appea ls (Boa

rd) Chairman' s Memorandum 01-06-24; and ( 2) orde red that "[t] he Secr e ta r y w il l p r o c e e d

to p r o c e s s th e a

p p e a ls th a t w e r e s ta

y e d in a c c o r d an c e w it

h th a t u n la wful

m em o ra n d

u m 'i nre gu l ar

o rd er ac co rd i n g t o [ t h ei r] p l ac e on t h e do ck et '" and wi l l ap p l y t h i s C o u rt 's decision in Haas v. Nicholson , 20 Vet.App. 257 ( 2006), appeal dock eted , No. 07-7037 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2006) to those appea ls. Ribaudo , 20 Vet.App. at 561 (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(1) ). The Court also outlined a procedure by which the Secre tary could fil e a motion to stay the pre cede ntial eff ect of Haas. Id. at 560-61.

On J anuar y 16, 2007, the S ecr etar

y filed an oppose d motion requesting that the Court (1) stay the pre cede ntial effe ct of Ha as pending judicial resolution in Haas , (2) stay the adjudication of case s p o t e n t i a l l y a f

f e c t e d b y Haas , (3) r

ule expeditiousl y o n t h e m o t i o n to stay , and (4) delay enter ing judgme nt in Ribaudo until the moti on to stay has bee n ruled upon. On J an u ar y 2 4 , 2007, the pe tit ion e r f

ile d a mot ion to d ism iss the Se c re tary ' s mo tio n o n th e ba sis tha t it mus t be fi le d n ot i n th is

case , but in Haas

. Separately , the petit ioner also has filed an opposed motion for the Court to orde r the Secr etar

y to show cause why he should not be held in conte mpt for violating our J anuar y 9, 2007, order g ranting the petition for extraordinar y relief

.
On Janu ary 26 , 20 07 , the Court iss ue d a n or de r, sta

ying un til fu

rt he r or de r of the Co ur

t,

a d j u d i c a t i o nb e f

o r e t h e B o ar d an d V A r e g i o n a l o f f i c e s c a s e s t h a tar e p o t e n t i a l l y a f f e c t e d b y Haas

. On J anuar

y 31, 2007, the Court enter ed judg ment and noted the entry of j udg ment did not affe ct the J anuar y 26, 2007, order

.2 I. P RO CE DU RE AN D J URISD IC TIO N

I nitially , the Court rec og n i z es t h at the Secr etar y ' s motion t o stay

the pre cede ntial effe ct of Haas includes both a c onfession that he is unsure whether he has selec ted t he appr opriate pr ocedur al

a ve nu e fo r t

his mot ion

and an invit a tio n f

or the Court

to con st rue hi s mo tio n a s a pp ro pr iate to prese nt the merits of his stay reque st. The petitioner, on the othe r hand, a rg ues that Rule 8(a ) of the Fe dera l Rules of Appellate Procedur e requires us to dismi ss the Secre tary ' s stay motion. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 8(a) . I n our dec ision in Ribaudo , we se t f orth, for the first time, the particula r proc edure to be used by a par

ty seekingto stay

the ef fec t of one of our

decisions. See R ibaudo , 20 Vet.App.

a t 56 0 ( " [W]e w ill a do pt t he pri nci pl e that

un de rl ie s Ru le 8( a ) o f t

he F e de ra l Ru le s o f A

pp e llate Pr oc e dure and

the a da ptatio n o f t

hat r ule by F e de ra l Cir c uit

Rul e 8( a ), name ly ' that the imm e diate ly subordinate tribuna l has jurisdiction to act on a mot ion for a sta y ' even in a

case wher e a N otice of Appea l has bee n filed see king r eview in the [U.S . Court of Appea ls for the] Fede ral Circuit [(Fe dera l C i rc u i t )]

. " ( qu o t i n g In re Bailey , 11 Vet.App. 348, 349 (1998) (Ne beker , J ., dissenting) )). We then conclude d that, "if the Secre tary or Boa rd Chairman wishes to stay the ef fec t of Haas , the Secr etar

y must file with this Court, or the F eder al Circuit, a motion to stay the ef fec t of this Court's dec ision in th at c ase. " Id.

Be cause the proc edure s adopted in Ribaudo postdate our opinion in Haas , and because the parties deser

ve a swift resolution of the motion to stay , we will dec ide the motion in Ribaudo rathe r tha n f os te r u nn e c e ssa ry de lay by dis mis sin g the mot ion

and re qu ir ingthe Se c re tary

to r e fi le his motion in Haas

. I n the future , howeve r, a pa rty seekingto stay

the ef fec t of one of our

decisions

mus t f ile a mot ion to s tay in the c a se the e ff

e c t of wh ic h th e pa

rt y wi sh e s to sta

y . Pe rm itt inga

pa rt y to f ile a sta y mot ion in a ca se oth e r tha n the on e to wh ic h the mot ion pe rt a ins is not in k e e pin g wi th the g e ne ra l pr inc ipl e s und e rl y ingRul e 8( a ) of the F e de ra l Rule s of A pp e llate Pr oc e dure and

c ou ld inv ite un c e rt a int

y and pro cedu ra l c ha os . T hu s, a lth ou g h w e wi ll d e ny the pe tit ion e r' s mo tio n to dismiss the Secr etar

y ' s motion i n this case, we ag ain stress that thi s is a one-time exception to our

ne wl y a do pte d p ro c e dure re qu ir ingthat a motio n to stay the pr e c e de nti a l e ff e c t of a pa rt ic ula r c a se be filed in that c ase.
Although one of our dissenting co l leagues would hold that the Court has jurisdiction over the Secr etar

y ' s stay motion only if it is filed under the Haas do c ke t numbe r, that vi e w und uly lim its the Court' s j u ri sdictional brea dth in this matter. While we a g ree that the Court would have jurisdiction to conside r such a motion in Haas , it do e s n ot f

oll owthat Haas is the only case in which the sta y mot ion may be he ard . Co ns tit

uti on a lly , th e pr op ri e ty

of the sta y is a l ive c a se or

c on tr ov e rs y betwee n the Secr etar

y and Mr. Ribaudo that re lates to the re lief re quested by Mr. Ribaudo' s petition. See R amsey

v. Nicholson , 20 Vet.App. 223, 224 (2006) (pe r cur iam order ) (dismissing pe tition as moot because petitioners had obtained relief soug ht, i.e., the Secr etar y resc inded B oard' s stay

order

and dir e c te d B oa

rd to r e sume a dju dic a tio n o f s tay e d c la ims ); W a te rh o u s e v

. P r inc ipi , 3 Ve t.App. 473, 475 (1992) ( holding that pa rties before Court must "pe rsonally have suf fer ed some a ctual or t h re at en ed i n

j u ry as a re s u l t o f th e pu t at i v e il l ega l co n d u ct " ( qu o t i n g Va lle

y Fo rg e Chr ist ian Col l. v. Ams. United for Se

paration of C

hu r ch & State, Inc ., 45 4 U .S. 46 4, 47 2 ( 19 82 )) ); Mokal v

. Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (adoption of Article I I I case -or- controve rs y j u ri sdictional3

re qu ir e me nts ). Statut or ily a s to su bje c t matte r, the re is n o d isp ute that ou r jur isd ic tio n und e r t

he Al l Writs Act, 28 U.S.C . § 1651(a) , ex t en d s t o t h e relief re quested by Mr. Ribaudo. See R amsey , 2 0 Ve t

. Ap p

. 1 6 , 2 1 (2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g In re Fe e Agree ment of Cox , 10 Vet.App. 3 6 1 , 3 7 1 (1 9 9 7)). Statutorily

as to forum, we clea

rly indicated in our decision g ranting Mr. R ibaudo' s petition that we reta in jurisdiction over the enfor ceme nt of our dec isions even af ter we no longe r have jurisdiction over the merits of a c ase be cause it has been a ppeale d to the Fe dera l Circ uit. Ribaudo , 20 Vet.App.

a t 56 0; see als o Hec kler

v. Lopez , 463 U.S. 1328 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., acting a s Circuit J ustice); JW K I ntern Corp. v. United States , 49 Fe d.Cl. 364, 370 (2001), a ff 'd , 279 F.3d 985 ( Fe d. Cir. 2002). Any panel opinion by this Court sugg esting otherwise is he reby overr uled. See , e.g ., In re Bailey , su pra (holding that filing of appea l to Fe dera l Circ uit divests this Court of jurisdiction to consider motion to s tay

Court order pe nding a

ppeal)

.
Acc ording ly , the C ourt holds that there is jurisdiction to decide the motion in the inst ant ca se. As detailed a

bove, ther e ar e prude ntial conce rns that would normally compel us to dec line ruling on
a sta y mot ion ou tsi de the c a se wh os e pr e c e de nti a l e ff e c t th e mot ion s e e ks to s tay . N on e the le ss,
un de r t he un iqu e c ir c ums tanc e s pre se nte d– the ne e d to re so lve thi s mo tio n p ro mpt ly c omb ine d w ith the Court' s not having y et adopted a Rule of Prac tice and Proc edure to guide prac titioners in f iling such motions–we conclude that the normal prudential conce rns are outweig hed by the circ umstances in t his c a se

. I n a dd iti on and sig nif ic antl y , a c tio n on the sta

y mot ion he re is be ing takin g by a fu llCourt panel. Cf. Bethea v. De rwinski , 2 Vet. Ap p

. 2 5 2 , 2 54 (1992) ( noting that whe re the re is an

ear lier three -judg e pane l opinion, in a subsequent case , a three-judg e pane l may not rende r a de cision that conflicts mater ially

with such ea

rlier pa nel).

II. THE SECRET ARY'S REQUEST TO S TAY

Turn ingto t

he me ri ts o f t

he Se c re tary ' s mo tio n, inRibaudo we state d:

Whe the r su c h a mot ion [to sta y the e ff e c t of a de c isi on ] is g ra

nte d is e nti re ly within this Court's discretion, and, in e x erc ising that discr etion, this Court wil l look to the following four c riteria g ener al l y considere d rele vant in deter mining whe ther to stay the ef fec t of a court de cision pending appea l: (1) The likelihood of suc cess on the merits of the moving party ' s appea l; (2) whethe r the moving party will suffer irrepa rable harm in the absenc e of a stay ; ( 3) the impact on the non-moving party of that stay ; and (4) the public interest. See R amsey , 2 0 Ve t

. Ap p

. at 3 9 (c i t i n g Sta nd ar d Have ns Prods., Inc. v . Genc or Indus., Inc. , 897 F.2d 511, 512 (F ed. Cir. 1990)). T o be clear, the Court's gr ant of a st ay of t he effec t of one of its decisions could include direc ting or

authorizing the Secreta

ry and B oard Chair

man to stay

case s at the B oard and at the ag encie s of orig inal jurisdiction. See Nat'l Org. of Veterans Adv ocates v

. Se c ' y of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs , 2 60 F .3 d 1 36 5, 13 80 (F e d. Cir . 2 00 1) (d ir e c tin g VA" to stay all proce eding s involving cla ims for [dependenc y and indemnity compensation] be ne fi ts und e r [3 8 U .S. C. § ] 131 8, wh os e ou tc ome is de pe nd e nt o n th e re g ulatio n in question, pending the conc lusion of an expedited rulemaking ")

.4

20 Vet.App. at 560. As the moving pa rty , the S ec re t ar y has the burde n of demonstrating that the fa c tor s w e ig h in

fa vo r o f g ra

nti ng hi s requ est e d s tay . T he we ig hin g of the fa c tor s is no t a mathematica l exercise. Se e Hi lto n v . B ra un sk ill , 481 U.S. 770, 777 (1987) ("Since the traditional sta y fa c tor s c on tem pl ate ind ivi du a lize d ju dg me nts in e a c h c a se , th e fo rm ula c ann ot b e re du c e d to

a se t of r ig id r

ule s. " ); Standard Havens Prods., Inc

., 897 F.2d at 512 (" Eac h fac tor . . . nee d not be g iven equa l weig ht.") . Ultimately , whether a stay is appropriate depe nds on the totality of the circ umstances. There fore , the above framework should not be r eg arde d as inflexible or exclusive. Also, whether the stay

is gr anted or

not rests entirely

within our discretion. Id . To deter mine how to exercise that discre tion, we now addr ess the four fac tors under the circ umstances pr esente d in the instant moti on.

I nitially , the Court observe s that the fra m ew o rk we b orrow f rom Rule 8(a) of the F eder al R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d

u r e i s n o tart i c u l a t e d

s o a s t o b e d i r e c t l y

a p p l i e d t o v e t e r an s b e ne fi ts claims. The Court will first discuss in ge nera l terms how ea ch fa ctor pe rtains to appea ls of veter ans benef its claims. See Standard H avens Prods., Inc. and Ribaudo , both su pra . T he n w e wi ll d isc us s how ea ch fa ctor a

pplies to this particular ca se.

A. L ikelihood of Succe ss on the Merits of the Appe al

Th e lik e lih oo d of su c c e ss on the me ri ts o f t he mov ingpa

rt y ' s a pp e a l is no t a

ri g id c on c e pt. Hilton , 481 U.S. at 777. The de termination of s u cc es s d o es not depend on a showing of a mathematica l probability

of succ ess, but rathe r on whether there is " substantial e quity , and [a] need for ju di cia l pro tec ti on ," su ch th at "an or der m ain tai ni ng th e st atu s q uo is app rop ri ate ." W ash. Metro. A r e a Tra n s it

Co m m 'n , 5 59 F .2 d 8 41 , 8 44 (D .C. Cir . 1 97 7) . T o s a tis fy thi s requ ir eme nt, the pa

rt y
se e kin g to m a int a in t

he status qu o thr ou g h a sta y ne e d o nly

ra ise qu e sti on s o n th e me ri ts t hat are " so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them a fa ir g round for litigation and thus for

mo re de li bera te i nv est igat io n. " Hamilton W a t ch Co. v. Be nrus W

atch Co. , 206 F.2d 738, 740 (2nd Cir. 1953).

The Court re cog nize s that "[w]henever decisions of one court a

re r eviewe d by

another , a perc ent age of t hem are rev ers e d ." Brown v. Allen , 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953) (Jackson, J.,

c on c ur ri ng ) ( ma int a ini ngtha

t " [w]e are no t fi na l be c a

us e we are inf

a lli ble , b ut w e are inf

a lli ble on ly beca use we are final" ). To deter mine the likelihood that any ruling of law will survive appe al, the best objective test is the deg ree to which it is rooted in well-established la w. Where the decision of

a cour t takes only

a small incre mental step fr om established law or relies on a strong analog y to clear prec edent, then there is reason to be lieve that re versa l is unli kely . Conversely , delving into an are a with litt le pre cede nt increa ses the cha nces of a diffe rent rulingon appea l. Another objec tive fac tor to consider is the number of ruling s involved in reac hing the final conc lusion. As the number of ruli n g s in c r e a s e s , th e li k e li h o o d th a t t h e f in a l c o n c lu s io nw il l b e mo d if ie d o r r e v e r s e d o na p peal

nece ssarily

incre ases. Additionally , b ec au se the F eder al Circuit' s jurisdiction is l imited to review of our int e r

p r e tati o n s o f la

w an d r e g u lati o n , th e f

o c u s is n o t o n th e s p e c if

ic f a c ts o f th e c a s e to be stay ed. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 29 2; Forshey v. Principi , 284 F.3d 1335, 1359 (Fe d. Cir. 2002) (en ba nc); Prenzler v. D erwinski , 9 2 8 F. 2 d 3 9 2 , 3 9 3 (F e d

. C i r. 1 9 9 1 ) ( re co gn i z i n g t h at t h e F ed er al C i rc u i t 'sT he C o urt exp res ses no o p i ni o n i n t hi s d eci si o n as t o whet her t he Se cret ary wo ul d i n f ac t be ab l e t o recoup 1

an y be n ef

i t s a wa r ded pu r s u an t t o H aas , i f H aas i s r ev er s ed.

5 revie w of our statutory

and re gulatory

interpre tation wi ll b e c on du c te d de no vo ). Sim ply pu t, beca use the F eder al Circuit can r eview only our leg al deter

minations, it s review

will alway s be de

novo.

The iss u e d ec i d ed in Ha as was one of first impression. Reac hing a decision re quired the Court to interpre t three lay ers of authority : A s tatute, its impl ementing regulation, and the re levant provisions of VA Adjudication ProcedureManual M21-1. Haas , 20 Vet.App. at 277. None of the lay ers of authority have be en addr essed e x tensively b y prior ca selaw. The ref

ore, ba sed on the

numb e r an d n o v e l t y o f t h e i s s u e s i n i t s d e c i s i o n s u b j e c t t o d e n o v o r e v i e w b y t h e F e de ra l Cir c uit , Haas prese nts severa l substantial, novel issues that may result in the Fe dera l Circuit modify ing or

reve rsing our dec ision. See Standard Havens Prods., Inc

. , 897 F.2d at 516 (g ranting stay pending resolution of appe al i n p ar t b ased upon the appellant' s showing of a " substantial leg al question" ). I nde e d , th e s e c ir c u ms ta

n c e s p r e s e n t f

a ir g r o u n d f

o r li ti g a ti o n an d th

u s p r o d u c e a g o o d r e a s on for maintaining the s tatus quo pending further deliberate re view. See id. a t 51 3- 14 ; see also Alaska Ce nt. Exp ress , Inc. v . United States , 51 Fe d.Cl. 227 (2001) (if e quities weig h heavily in favor of

ma int a ini ngstatus qu o, c ourt may g ra nt i nju nc tio n w he re qu e sti on ra ise d is nove l or c los e ); Golden Eagle Ref. Co. v. U

nited States , 4 Cl.Ct . 622 (1984) (same). Thus, the C ourt in its dis cre tion holds that the Secr etar

y has met his burden of

demonstrating that the first fa ctor we ighs in his favor.

B. Irre para

ble Har m

On the sec ond fac tor, " whether the moving party

will suffer ir

repa rable harm in the a

bsence of a sta y ," the po te nti a l B oa

rd de c isi on s b e fo re the Cour t de a l pr ima

ri ly wi th p ayingdis a

bil ity compensation and providing other VAbenef its. Theref

ore, it is difficult t o discern whether the Se c re tary wi ll e ve r s uf

fe r " ir re pa ra ble " ha rm fr om b e ingde nie d a

stay of a decision

of thi s Co ur t. See 38 U. S.C. §§ 30 1( b) , 7 26 1; Tobler v. Derwinski , 2 Ve t.A pp . 8 , 1 1- 12 (1 99 1) . T he Court mus t consider, how ever , the g ener ally overbur dened V A sy stem and any additional burdens imposed on t h i s c o mp l e x s ys t e m b y r e qu i r i n g t h e S e c r e t ar y t o a d j u d i c a t e c a s e s a f

f e c t e d b y Ha as while that decision is still on appea l. First, althoug h the Secr etar y has the powe r to resc ind or discontinue

awa rded be nefits and, unde r ce rtain ci rcumstances, to rec over mone y alre ady disbursed, see 38 U.S.C. §§ 5302, 5314, 5112(b) (6), the time spe nt on making the se dec isions, and then revoking benef its awarde d and initiating rec overy of pay ments, can never be rec laimed by the Secr etar

y if a leg al interpre tation by

this Court i s later r ever sed. Cf. Adams v. Fre edom ForgeCorp. , 204 F.3d 1 475, 484-85 (3r d Cir. 2000) (" The irr epar able harm re q u i reme nt is met if a plaintiff demonstrate s a sig nificant risk that he or she will experienc e har m that cannot ade quately be compe nsated a fter the fa ct by

monetary damag es." ).
Second, o cc as i o n all y

a dec ision of this C ourt may invalidate the pr ocedur es used by the Secre tary in a manner

that would require a ser ious restru ct u ri n g of the VAworkfor ce. See, e .g., Colvin v. Derwinski , 1 Ve t.A pp . 1 71 (1 99 1) (h old ingthat B oa rd pa ne ls may c on sid e r o nly6

independe nt medical evide nce to support their finding s, resulting in VA alteringits long-standing pr a c tic e of

inc lud ingme mbe rs of the B oa rd wi th me dic a l e xpe rt ise on e a c h p ane l and

re lyingon

the ir medical opinion in renderingBoa rd dec isions). For a

case on appea l to the Fede ral Circuit, it may b e p ru d e n t t o s t ay

t h e p re ce d en t i al ef

fe ct o f o u r o p i n i o ni n

t h at ca s e t o av o i d

a t i m e- co n s u m i n g, tr a umatic , a nd po te nti a lly

unne c e ssa

ry re or g anizatio n o f a dju dic a tio n p e rs onne l.
Third, to the extent our rulings a ffe ct the Secr etar y ' s dealing s with gr oups bey ond his control (such a s independe nt entities that provide spec ific ser vices to vete rans, or

private pa

rties that might possess rele vant re cords) , the Court should consider the pote ntial for unnec essar il y straining the limit ed re source s o f t h es e o rganizations. Time spent on these a ppeals, if they

need to be

rea dj u d i ca t ed following the Fe dera l Circuit's de cision in Haas , is critical time that ca nnot be

re c ou pe d b y the se su pp or tin g or g anizatio ns

. Ra the r, de nying the Se c re tary ' s mo tio n f or a sta y wo uld result in consu m i ng and expending even mor e time and r esourc es in a sy stem where time is very much of the e ssence for e ach c laimant, not just those individuals potentially aff ecte d by our dec ision in Haas . Henc e, the Court ca nnot be completely

insensitive to the potential for administrative disruption that ex ists when it denies a stay motion. Of course , a Court dec ision may affec t the Secre tary in ot h er wa y s and we have no doubt that he will be motivated to fully inform us of the potential eff

ects of de ny ing a

stay in any g iven ca se so that we c an we i gh t h e p otential eff ect a s appropr iate. In sum, we conc lude that a denial of a st ay would result i n some harm to t he Secr etar y by the likely cre ation of administrative disruption in an alre ady g ener ally overbur dened sy stem.

C. Impa c t on

No nmo vin g Part

y
The impac t on the nonmoving pa rty befor e VA, which her e includes Mr . Ribaudo, must be judge d by

the g roup that is define d by the l aw b eing interpre ted. Althoug h the leg al questions i n v o l v edi nre s o l v i n g a p et i t i o nfo r e x t ra o rd i n ary re l i ef m ay re qu i re ex am i n i n g a p et i t i o n er 's individual circumstance s, see Erspame r v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 3, 10- 11 (1991), the le g al question of wh e the r a

sta y is ap pr op ri a te is a dif

fe re nt an d bro a de r inq

uir y

. I t is no t a

c ha lle ng e to o pp on e nts of the stay to se lect the most critically ill and sy mpathetic cla imants seeking the par ticular ty pe of be ne fi t a t is su e

. Thus , the Court sh ou ld e xami ne wh e the r t he c la ss o f b e ne fi ts i nv olv e d n e c e ssa ri ly

corr esponds to a cla ss of claimant whose needs a re unique or par

ticularly time sensitive.

I n this case, the g roup of third-pa rty claimants af

fec t ed b y the stay are those who have conditions presumpt i v el y re l at ed to ex posure to Ag ent Ora ng e who would not be e ntitled to that presumption if Haas wer e to be reve rsed or signific antly modified. The list of su ch condit ions includes not only

common conditions such as ty pe I Idiabetes, but a lso numerous forms of c ance r
and oth e r cr iti c a l con dit ion s. 38 C.F .R. § 3 .3 09 (e ) ( 20 06 ). B e c a us e ve te ra ns ' c la ims die wi th t

he m,
s o m e c l ai m an t s af

fe ct edb y s t ay i n g Haas wo uld qu a lif y a s h a vin g e sp e c ia lly

tim e -s e ns iti ve c la ims

. Se e Lan dic ho v . B ro wn , 7 Ve t.A pp

. 42 , 47 (1 99 4)

. Th e re fo re , th e de lay su ff e re d b y the se c la ima

nts is c on se qu e nti a l and

mus t be a ff

or de d w e ig ht i n th e c on sid e ra tio n o f t he sta y fa c tor s.7 D. Pub lic I nte re st
Considering the fourth f

actor , the members of the public that are particula rly interested in the outcome of the ty

pe of stay motions presented he re a

re the milli ons of cur

rent a nd potential veter ans benef its claimants. The primar y eff ect of not g ranting a st ay is incursion of the risk t hat proc essing claims while the lea d case is on appea l will result in a waste of r esourc es that fur ther burde ns the veter ans bene fits sy stem. I n exercising our authority under the All Writ s Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), to insure that the B oard a djudicates c laims in a timely manner , we only exercise such power wher e "the delay amounts to an arbitra

ry ref usal to act, a

nd [i s] not the produc t of a bur dened sy stem." Cos tan za v . W

est , 12 Vet.App. 133, 134 (1999) (per curiam order). Thus, this g roup has no e ffe ctive

re me dy fr om t he Court if de nyinga

sta y re su lts in a

fu rt he r b ur de n o n V A' s adj udic a tio n s y ste m. Moreove r, the Court notes that our oblig ation to consider the e ffe ct of o u r ru l i n gs o n the sy stem exis ts throughout our

j u ri s p rudence. See , e.g. , Mason v. Nicholson , 20 Vet.App. 279, 289 ( 2006) (re fusing to order a

rema nd that would be "a supe rfluous exercise adding to an alre ady overbur dened sy stem") . Acc ording ly , the more limited the resour ces that may be consumed by VA' s adjudication of a la rg e number

of claims that may

later ha ve to be r eadjudicated af

ter a judicial decision, the more

c a uti on the Court sh ou ld e xer c ise in r e fu sin g the Se c re tary pe rm iss ion

to s tay tho se c a se s.

Th e re c an b e e xten siv e de lay in ob ta ini ng a fi na l a pp e llate de c isi on . T he ve te ra ns be ne fi ts sy stem is u n u s u al , i f not unique, in the deg ree of administrative c laims adjudication and judicial revie w of those a djudications

. I n addition to the multi ple lay ers of VA dec ision review, ve tera ns have two se parate lay ers of appea l of rig ht to independent judicial r ev i ew. B ey ond the plenar y appellate revie w of this Court , 38 U.S.C. § 7261, the appellant has a second a ppeal of rig ht to the Fe dera l Circuit and then ca n seek f urther r eview by

the U.S. S u p re m e C ourt. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Howeve r, bec ause of

the limited nature of the Fe dera l Circuit's re view of our decisions, t here is no gu ar an t ee t h at t h e ap p ea l o f t h e s t ay edd ec i s i o nwi l l re s u l ti na d ef i n i t i v e r es o l u t i o no f t h e S ec re t ary 's dispute with our l eg al i nterpre tation. The Fede ral Ci rcuit m ay vacate and r emand one portion of our decision for further proce eding s without c omment on the whole. See , e.g. , Mayfield v . Nicholson , 444 F.3d 1328 (F ed. Cir. 2006)

. This can lea d to one of the Court' s decisions beingappea led to the Fe dera l Circuit mult iple times over many y ear s befor e an issue is r esolved. Moreove r, beca use the Fe d er al C i rc u i t 's j u ri s d i ct i o nex t en d s t o ar gu m en t s "i nwh i ch t h e [ C o u rt 's ] d ec i s i o n

. . . re gar d i n g a go v ern i n g ru l e o f l aw wo u l d h av e b ee nal t er edb y

ad o p t i n g t h e p o s i t i o nb ei n g u rge d

. . . ev en t h o u gh the issue under ly ing the stated position was not ' relied on' by the . . . Court," it is quite possible that the Fe dera l Circuit will not addre ss any of the interpr etati o n s by this Court challeng ed by the Secre tary in hi s ap p ea l. Morgan v. Principi , 3 27 F .3 d 1 35 7, 13 63 (F e d. Cir . 2 00 3) . B e c a us e it i s possible that a

n interpre tation of law by this Court may be the subjec t of litigation for y ear s, denying a stay of one of our dec isions may

result in the nee d to rea djudicate hundr eds, if not t housands, of

c la ims by the tim e the c or

re c tne ss o f t

he ru lin g is fi na lly a dd

re sse d by the F e de ra l Cir c uit or the U. S. Supreme Court. Ther e is no question that the re ad j u dication of such a

number of c ases a

nd any subsequent ef

fort to r ecove r benef

its paid pursuant to them would result in a sig nificant burde n on a sy stem that is alrea dy

handling close to a million new cla ims for bene fits eac h y ear

.D uri ng oral argument on D ecem b er 6, 2 0 0 6 , when asked ho w m an y c a se s w e re being st ayed p end i ng t he 2

a p p e a l o f H aas , t he Se cret ary ' s represent at i ve repo rt ed that m o re t han 1 , 5 0 0 ap p eal s were b ei ng s t ayed p urs uant t o B o ard Cha i r man ' s M emor an du m 01- 06- 24.

8 I t is not di sputed th at t h e C ourt' s ruling in Haas could possibly extend the presumption of h er b i ci d e e x p o s u re t o 8 3 2 , 0 0 0 v et er an s n o tp re v i o u s l y en t i t l edt o t h e p re s u mp t i o n

. S ec re t ary 's Motion at 10. This number is almost the t otal number of compensation claims filed last y ear

. Id

. Undoubtedly , it affe cts more than 1,500 c laims curre ntly pending at the B oard. Acc ording ly , even 2 i f o n l y a m o d e s tp e r c e n t a g e o f

t h o s e v e t e r an s a f

f e c t e d b y Haas filed cla ims based on that dec ision, the number of exis ting and potential claims is signific ant and could result in a substantial burden on the sy stem, in terms of deve l o p m en t , adjudication, and r eadjudication if such claims had to be

rea djudicated some months or y ear s in the future. H ence , if Haas wer e to be modified or reve rsed, the conse quence s would cer tainly be felt not just by

those whose be nefits wer e discontinued but by milli ons of veteran s an d dependa nts who must contend with the delay s cause d by the limited

resour ces a

vailable to the Sec reta

ry

. E. Totality

of the Circumstanc es

Ex amining the circ umstances surr ounding the se four fac tors as a w hole, we f i n d that the Secre tary has met his burd en of demonstrating that the ef fec t of our dec ision in Haas should be stay ed. Althoug h the sec ond and third fac tors weig h, at least to some deg ree , ag ainst g ranting the motion, the first and fourth fac tors toge ther outweig h the other fac tors under the fac ts of this case. Th e Court

re c og nize s th e dis a dv anta g e that may be e xpe ri e nc e d by c la ima nts wh os e be ne fi ts c ou ld be awa rd e d n owby

de nying the Se c re tary ' s stay mot ion and or de ri ng him to a dju dic a te tho se c la ims

an d a p p l y Haas . H ow e ve r, in a wo rl d o f l imi te d r e so ur c e s a nd un c e rt a int

y in t he a pp e a ls p ro c e ss, the Court mus t a c c e pt i ts r ole in b a lanc ingc omp eti ng in tere sts wh e re it i s n ot a lw ay s p os sib le to proce ss some vetera

ns' claims without prejudicing the intere sts of ot h er v eter ans. Ther efor e, our temporar y stay issu ed o n J anuar

y 26, 2007, will be dissolved and the Secr etar y ' s motion wil l be g ra nte d in pa rt

.
I n li g ht o f t

he c ri tic a l na

tur e of so me o f th e dis a

bil iti e s invo lve d, and

the fa c t th a t so me claimants may

not survive the duratio n o f t his stay , the Court qualifies the stay in that it does not

a ff e c t in any waythe Secr etar y ' s ability to advanc e ca ses on the docke t of the B oard ba sed on the compelling fac ts of an individual case . 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a) (2); 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (noting that

a c a se may be a dv anc e d o n th e B oard's do cket if " the a pp e lla nt is s e rio us ly

ill or is u nd e r se v e re fin an c ial ha rd sh ip, or if o the r su

ffi c ie nt c au se is s ho wn " (e mph a sis a dd e d) ). I nd ivi du a l c la ima nts may still apply

to the Boa

rd to have their ca ses adva nced, a s an exception to the stay g rante d by the Cour t. I n r u li n g o n an y mo ti o n s f

o r a dv an c e me n t o n th e d o c k e t, th e Se c r e ta r y w il l, o f c o u r s e, ac t expeditious ly , and if the Secre tary does advanc e such case s, they will no long er be subject to the stay g rante d in this order. In adjudicat i n g t h o s e ca ses, the Secr etar y must apply

our opinion in Haas

. This statutory rig ht ensure s, as recog nized by our di ssenting colleague, that "the adjudication of the most serious case s (such a s those involving ve tera ns with serious health or f inancial issues) c an be

ex ped it ed, " po st at __, s l i p o p

. at 15-16, and suc h rig ht, theref ore, a ddresse s the conc ern a s to the9

potential irrepa

rable harm to those nonmoving third-par ty claimants who a

re similar ly

s it u a te d to M r. Ribau d o wi t h appea ls pending befor e the B oard a nd who may

have se rious, life-thre atening

c on dit ion s. Mo re ov e r, the Se c re tary ' s a uth or ity to o rd e r e qu ita

ble re lie f i n a

pp ro pr iate c a se s is a lso unaff ecte d and, therefor e, provide s y et another alternative reme dy

. See Erspamer , 9 Vet.App. at 511-12 (Court' s authority

does not extend to reviewingSecre tary ' s exercise of his equitable powe rs). As a fina l matter, the stay does not apply

to case s where the Court has alre ady issued a dec ision

o r d e r i n g V A t o a

p p l y Ha as and the Secre tary did not appea l that de cision to the Fe dera l Circuit. See W inslow v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 469, 472 (1996) (" A lower tribunal, ' upon rec eiving the mandate of an appe llate cour

t, may not alter, amend, or e x amine the manda te, or g ive any

further relief or
re v i ew , b u t m u s t en t er an o rd er i ns t ri ct co mp l i an ce wi t h t h e m an d at e'") (q u o t i n g Piambino v. Bailey, 75 7 F .2 d 1 11 2, 11 19 -2 0 ( 11 th C ir . 1 98 5) ); Moore v. De rwinski , 2 Vet.App. 67, 68 (1992) ( order ing t h e Secr etar

y to show cause why

he should not be held in conte mpt for fa ilure to comply with the mandate of

the Court).

III. THE P ETIT IONER'S CONT EMP T MOTIONS

Th e pe tit ion e r h a s f

ile d a mot ion fo r a n ord e r that the Se c re tary sh ow c a us e why he sh ou ld not be held in conte mpt. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 26 5 ( e xplic itl y g ra nti ngthe Court

po we r t o e nf

or c e its lawful orde rs throug h enumer ated c ontempt powers) . The Court has rec og nized that "' [b] eca use of th eir very po ten cy , [ c o n t emp t] po wers mu st be ex erci sedwi th res tr ain t an d d is cret io n. '" Jones v. De rwinski , 1 Ve t

. Ap p

. 5 9 6 , 6 0 7 (1 9 9 1 ) ( qu o t i n g Chamb er s v. NASCO, Inc. , 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991)) . Henc e, " a cour

t consideringsanctions . . . m ust take ca re to de termine that the c onduct at is su e actual ly

abu sedth e ju di cia l p roce ss ." Jones , 1 Vet.App. at 607.

As a re sult of its hol dings in Ribaudo , the Court issued two order s: (1) the S ecr etar y was order ed to re scind Boa

rd Chairman' s Memorandum 01-06-24, and (2) the Secr etar y "w ill decide Mr. R i b au d o 's ap p ea l i nre gu l ar o rd er ac co rd i n g t o i t s p l ac e up o nt h e do ck et an d wi l l ap p l y t h i s C o u rt 's decision in Haas ." Ribaudo , 2 0 V e t.A pp . at 56 1 ( int e rn a l citatio ns omi tte d) . Co nc e rn ingour f ir st order , at the pre sent time, there is no e vidence to sug g est that Boa rd Chairman' s Memorandum 01- 06-24 has not been rescinded. Reg ardingour sec ond order , beca use we subsequently

g rante d the Secre tary a pre liminary

stay as to that order , he ca

nnot be in c ontempt of Court a s to that particular order

.
I n s up po rt

of the c on te mpt

mot ion , th e pe tit ion e r atta c he s wh a t he a sse rt s are tw o e le c tr on ic mail messag es fr om the Secre tary ' s Chief Counsel for Policy to the Boa rd and it s supporting staf f

o rd er i n g t h e B o ar d

n o tt o p ro ce s s c a s e s t h a th ad b ee ns t ay edp u rs u an tt o t h e C h ai rm an 's Memorandum that wa s invalidated by our J anuar y 9, 2007, order g ranting Mr. R ibaudo' s petition. These me ssag es appe ar to have bee n during the two day s immediately following our January

9, 2007 order . Their p re l i m i nary condition is clear. See Show Cause Motion, Ex hibit A at 1 (" We are

c on su lti ngwi th the Gen eral Co un se l' s O ff ic e re g ard ingwh a t a c tio ns wi ll b e take n in lig ht o f t his sig nif ic ant d e c isi on

. . . . F ur the r i nf or matio n a nd g uid anc e wi ll b e pr ov ide d s ho rt ly ." ); Sho w C a us e Motion, Ex hibit B at 1-2 ( "I n the meantime, we at the Board continue to sit ti g ht today and tomorrow while the Court and litigation process wor k s i t self out. This action is in no way intended to be10

dis re sp e c tf

ul a s to the lawf

ul o rd e rs of

the Court , b ut r a the r i s in te nd e d to fo llo w the sp e c if ic pr oc e ss for obtaining a sta

y set forth by

the Court in Ribaudo. ")

. Rather than demonstrate contempt for the Court , th e se pr e lim ina

ry int e rn a l V A co mmunic a tio ns re fl e c t an ong oin g e ff or t by the Se c re tary

to comply with our opinion in Ribaudo

.
Mo re ov e r, a s n ote d a

bo ve , w e su

bs e qu e ntl y

g ra nte d th e Se c ret ary a

pr e lim ina

ry sta y wi th respe ct to the sec ond holding in Ribaudo , and, with respe ct t o the first holding in Ribaudo , we have nothing be fore us to sugg est that Boa rd Chairman' s Memorandum 01-06- 24 has not bee n resc inded. Although w e would be c oncer ned if our or ders we re not complied with, in the end, the petitioner ha s done a disser

vice to the Court by

filing a contempt motion so qui ckly , particula rly when, a s is the

case here , it is clea

r t hat t he S ecr etar

y is eng ag ed in an ong oing e ffor t to comply

with our dec ision in Ribaudo

. Ac c or din g ly , e ve n a ssumin g the a uth e nti c ity of the a lle g e d int e rn a l VAe le c tr on ic ma il messag es, there is no merit in the petitioner' s reque st for a show c ause or der.
Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is

O R D E R E D t h a tt h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e S e c r e t ar y ' s s t ay m o t i o ni s d e n i e d

. It is further

OR DE R E D t h at t h e J a nu ary 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , t em p o ra ry

s t ay i s d i s s o l v ed

. T h e S ec re t ary 's J anuar y 16, 2007, motion to s tay is gr anted in par

t. The adjudication of case s befor e the B oard a nd V A r e g i o n a l o f

f i c e s t h a tar e p o t e n t i a l l y a f f e c t e d b y Haas is stay ed until mandate issues in the pending appea l of Ha as to th e F e d e r a l Ci r c u it

. T h e Se c r e ta r y , h o w e v e r , ma

y , u p o n th e mo ti on of

an appellant, advanc e for consideration a nd deter mination c ompelling case s on the B oard' s docket as of the date of this order , see 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a) (2), to which o u r d ec i s i o n i n Ha as w i l l a p p l y. Moreove r, the Sec reta

ry ' s authority

to order e quitable relief in a ppropriate case s is also unaffe cted. I t is further

ORDERED that the Secr etar y , upon issuance of mandate by the Fe dera l Circuit in Haas , w ill p r o c e e d t o p r o c e s s t h e c l a i m s t h a tw e r e s t ay e d p u r s u an tt o t h i s o r d e r , u n l e s s o r d e r e d o t h e r w i s e

. It is further

ORDERED th a t th e p e ti ti o n e r ' s mo ti o n f o r an o r d e r th a t th e Se c r e ta r y s h o w c a u s e w h y he should not be held in contempt is denied.

DA TE D: Ap ri l 13 , 2 00 7 PER CU RI AM

.

HAGEL , Judge , c on c ur

ri ng : I c on c ur in the ma jor ity ' s dec isi on in p art

be c a us e the ma

jor ity makes it clea

r that its decision to enterta in in Mr. Ribaudo's c ase a motion that st ay s the eff

ect of our judgme nt in another c ase is limit ed to this one ins tance

. The proper procedur e would have been f or the Secr etar

y to have filed an a

ppropriate motion in Haas , and I would have r equire d the Secr etar ySee Secr et ar y ' s Jan uar y 16, 200 7, M ot i on t o St ay at n. 1 ( "[I ] n an abundan ce of cau t i on, t o avoi d a di s mi s s al 3
fo r la c k o f ju risd ic tio n , t h e S e c re ta ry re sp e c tfully re q u e sts tha t t h e C o u rt u se the insta n t ca se

. . . as th e p ro p e r v e h ic le fo r sta ying the p re c e d e n tial e ff e c t o f H aas

. " ).

11 to follow that proce dure

. I ndeed, the Secre tary ' s confusion reg ardingthe prope r proc edure for 3

s e e k i n g a s t ay i nc a s e s t h a tw o u l d

a p p l y Haas is my stify ing in lig ht of this Court's cle ar state ment in Ribaudo , th a t w e " a do pt t he pr inc ipl e tha

t un de rl ie s Rule 8( a ) o f t

he F e de ra l Ru le s o f A

pp e llate Pr oc e dure and

the a da ptatio n o f t

hat r ule by F e de ra l Cir c uit

Rul e 8( a ), name ly ' that th e imm e diate ly subordinate tribuna l has jurisdiction to act on a motion for a stay ' even in a case wher e a Notice of Appea l has been filed seeking review in the Fe dera l Circuit." Ribaudo v. Nicholson , 20 Vet.App. 552, 560 (2007) ( en banc ). I do not interpret Rule 8(a )–and hav e fo u n d no authority that does–as

a llo wi nga

pa rt y to f ile a mot ion to s tay the e ff

e c t of a judg me nt in any c a se oth e r tha n the on e wh os e judgme nt is sought to be stay ed. He re, the case contemplated by Rule 8(a) of the F eder al Rules of A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d

u r e an d t h e F e d e r a l C i r c u i t ' s R u l e s i s c l e ar l y Haas

. I f the Sec reta ry truly believed t hat this Court did not have jur isdiction to i ssue a stay in Haas , then the prope r cour se of a ction would have be en for

him to have filed in the F eder al Circuit his moti on t o s tay the ef fec t of our judgme nt in that case and its application to other cases. Rul e 8(a ) cle arly provides that ave nue. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 8(a) (2) ( providing that, if sufficie nt r easons are g iven, a motion to stay the judg ment

o r o rd er o f a di s t ri ct co u rt m ay b e ma d e in t h e co u rt o f ap p ea l s ). Ne v er t h el es s , Iac ce p tt h e C o u rt 's decision to employ a one-time exception to the gene ral rule in order to de cide e x peditiously a matter of g reat importance.
Turning to the merits of the motio n t o s t ay , Ibelieve that this decision is a difficult one. An d, a lth ou g h my dis se nti ng c oll e a g ue s ra ise c omp e lli ng po int s, thr e e fa c tor s in pa rt ic ula r l e a d me to concur in the majority ' s d ec ision to gra nt the motion. The first is the nature of the question p r e s e n te d in Haas –it is a case of

first impression aff

ecting , in a uniform manne r, the a djudication of cla ims and potential claims of a la rg e cla ss of veter ans. F urther, the Court's de cision in Haas is purely an exerc ise in statutory construction and the a pplication of principles of administrative law. Although a s a member

of the Haas pan el I h ave e very confide nce that the opinion is correc t, I

rec og nize that the Court's resolution of this que stion of first impression is based on our re solution of pure questions of law a bout which our re v iewing court–the F eder al Circuit–has substantial expertise and which it must revie w de novo–with no defe renc e to our rea soning a nd conclusions.

S econ d, g ive n th e pr omp t atte nti on pa id b y the F e de ra l Cir c uit

to i ts d oc ke t, t

he a dv e rs e impact of the stay

on the af fec ted claimants will be for a re latively

brief pe riod of time.
Finally , Iam persua ded to join in the majority ' s decision primarily beca use the majority

has wisely left open a

n avenue for c ompelling c ases to be a dvanc ed o n t h e docket of the B oard, thus alleviating the possibilit y of an unduly

harsh impac t on claimants who ar e u n d er sever e har dship. This important exception to the broad stay soug ht by the Secr etar y addre sses the conc erns r aised by Mr . Ri ba ud o r e g ard ingthe de tr ime nta l im pa c t th a t a stay wo uld have on ind ivi du a l c la ima nts wi th compelling circ umstances. The stay g rante d by

the Court is narrow ly

tailored so as not to harm that specia l class of c laimants.I conc ur i n par t I of t he C our t ' s order deny i ng M r

. R i baudo' s mo t i on t o di s mi s s t he Secr et ar y ' s mo t i on f or l ack 4
of j ur i s di ct i on, but I obser ve t hat , r at her t han ca r ve out a one
- t i me exc ept i on t o t he r equi r ement t hat t he mo t i on t o s t ay b e fil e d " in t h e c a se the e ff e c t o f w h ic h the p a rty w ish e s to sta y" , a n te a t

_

_ , sl i p o p . at 2

- 3 , t he C o urt co uld si m p l y use i t s p o wer o ver i t s o wn d o cket to recap t i o n t he Se cret ary ' s m o t i o n as i f i t had be en f

i l ed i n H aas v

. Ni chol

s on , N o. 04- 0 4 9 1

. See Am

. Le gi on v

. Ni chol s on , 2 0 V et

. A p p

. 5 0 1 (2 0 0 6 ) (en b anc o rder) (d i vi d i ng the jo i nt p et i t i o n f i l ed by T he A m eri can Le gi o n and M r. R i b aud o i nt o t wo separat e cases)

. I al so co ncur i n p art II I o f t he C o urt ' s o rder d enyi ng M r. R ib a u d o ' s m o tio n fo r th e C o u rt to issu e a n o rd e r tha t th e S e c re ta ry sh o w c a u se w h y h e s h o u ld n o t b e h e ld in c o n te m p t.

12 SCHOEL EN, Judge , concur ring in part and dissenting in part: I re s p ec t ful ly dissent from part I Iof the Court' s order beca use I believe the Secre tary

has not met his burden of e stablishing that a stay of the pre cede ntial effe ct of the Court' s decision in H a a s v

. Ni c h o lson , 2 0 Ve t

. App. 257 (2006), appeal dock

eted , No. 2007-7037 (F ed. C ir. Nov. 8, 2006), or that a st ay of cases re lated to Haas pending befor e VA is w arr anted. I do not be lieve that the Court has pr operly applied the 4 fo ur -f a c tor te st f ro m Standard Have ns Products, Inc. v. Genc or Industries, Inc. , 897 F.2d 511 (F ed. Cir. 1990), which we dec ided to follow in both Ribaudo v. Nicholson , 20 Vet.App. 552, 560 ( 2007) ( e nb an c ), a

p p ea l filed (F ed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2007) , and Ramsey v. Nicholson , 20 Vet.App. 16, 38- 39 (2 00 6) , w he n c on sid e ri ngthe a pp ro pr iate ne ss of a sta

y pe nd ing a

pp e a l. Th e fo ur -f

a c tor ana ly sis is be st d e sc ri be d a s a

" sli din g sc a le ," be c a

us e the fa c tor s are no t g ive n e qu a l w e ig ht, the mov ingpa rt y
ne e d not sa tis fy a ll the fa c tor s, and a str on g sh ow inga s to on e of the fo ur e le me nts may

ov e rc ome a weaker showing as t o the ot her three (or vice ve rsa)

. See R oland Mach. Co. v. Dre sser Indus., Inc

. , 749 F.2d 380, 388 ( 7th Cir. 1984) (observing that courts have taken a "sliding scale " approa ch to the deter mination of whether

a stay is appropriate).

The a pplication of Standard H

avens is b e st und e rs too d b y stu dyingthe tr e a tme nt o the r c ourt s have g iven to the first fac tor of the test. I f a movant establishes a strong likelihood of succe ss on the merits, courts will g rant a stay unless the nonm oving party would otherwise be sever ely prejudice d. Conve r s e ly , if a mo v an t is u n li k e ly to s u c c e e d o n th e me r it s , c o u rts w il l g r an t a s ta y only if the moving pa

rty would otherwise be sever ely prejudice d. Howeve r, i n case s wher e the likelihood of

succe ss is not clear, that is, wher e the moving party has only identified a substantial leg al question, to gr ant a stay , courts will require the moving pa rty to show that the rema ining f actor s (bala

nce of harms and the public intere st) weig h in its favor. See Standard Hav ens , 897 F.2d at 513 (stating that a stay will be g rante d "' [w] here [m ovant] establi s h es t h at i t has a stronglikelihood of succe ss on appea l, or wher e, fa iling that, it can none theless dem onstrate a su bs tan tia l c as e on the merits,' provided t h e o t h er fa ct o rs m i l i t at e i nm o v an t 's fa v o r" (q u o t i n g Hi lto n v . B ra un sk ill , 481 U.S. 770, 77 8 ( 19 87 )) ); E.I. DuPont deNemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. , 835 F.2d 277, 278- 79 (F ed. Cir. 1987) (g ranting m o t i o n t o stay upon a movant' s establishing both that ther e we re substantial legal iss ue s and

that th e ba lanc e of

ha rm s and the pu bli c int e re st w e ig he d in

its fa vo r) ; Cuomo v. Nuc le a r R e g u la to r yCo m m 'n , 7 72 F .2 d 9 72 , 9 74 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 5) (" Pr ob a bil ity of su c c e ss i s inv e rs e ly pr op or tio na l to the de g re e of

ir re pa ra ble inj ur y e vid e nc e d. A s tay

may be grant ed with either a high probability of success and some injury , or v ic e v e rsa ." ); Roland Mach. , 749 F.2d at 387 (" Th e mor e lik e ly

the pla int if

f i s to wi n, the le ss h e a vil y ne e d th e ba lance of harm s we ig h in his fa vo r; the le ss lik e ly he is to wi n, the mor e ne e d it w e ig h in his fa vo r. " ); W as h. Me tro . A re a Tran sit Comm'n v. Holiday Tours, Inc. , 559 F.2d 841, 843 ( D.C. Cir. 1977) (" The ne cessa ry ' level' or ' deg ree ' of possibilit y

of succ ess will vary

acc ording to the court' s assessment of the othe r fa ctors." ).13 I. Lik elihood of

Success on the Me rits of the Appeal

We c an do littl e more than speculate as to how the F eder al Circuit will resolve the a ppeal of our dec ision in Haas . T hat sa id, Ia g re e wi th t he ma jor ity ' s ob se rv a tio n that a numbe r o f r

uli ng s in Haas wer e is sues of fir st impression in thi s Court. An te at __, slip op. at 5. Thus, Ig ener ally ag ree wi th t he ma jor ity tha t th e Se c re tary

ha s p re se nte d a su

bs tanti a l le g a l qu e sti on

fo r t he F e de ra l Cir c uit to addre ss in Haas

.
Ho we ve r, Idis a g re e wi th t he maj ori ty

re g ard ingthe e ff

e c t of fi nd ingthat th e re is a "s u b s t an t i al l ega l qu es t i o n " rai s ed b y t h e S ec re t ary

. T h e ma j o ri t y s t at es t h at t h i s fi n d i n g fa v or s g ranting the Secre tary ' s motion for a stay

. Se e an te a t __, __, sli p op. a t 5, 8 (o bs e rv ingthat th e fi rs t fac tor favor s the Secre tary ). I disag ree

. The c ases c ited above c lear ly stand for the proposition that

me re ly pr e se nti nga

su bs tanti a l le g a l que sti on (a s opp os e d to sh ow inga str on g lik e lih oo d o f s uc c e ss)

we ig hs ne ith e r i n f

a vo r o f, no r a g a ins t, g ra

nti ng a sta y

. Ra the r, su c h a

fi nd inge sse nti a lly

re nd e rs thi s fac tor neutra l so that the Secre tary must prove that the balanc e of harms and the public interest fa vor g ranting a stay

. See Standard Havens , 897 F.2d at 513 (stating that a stay will be g rante d wher e the movant demonstrates a

s u b s ta nti al ca se on the mer its, "

provided t h e o t h er fa ct o rs m i l i t at e i nm o v an t 's fa vo r" ); s e e a l

s o E

. I

. D u P o n t d e N e m ou rs , 8 3 5 F

. 2 d

a t 2 7 8

- 7 9 ( g r an ti n g a

mo ti o nf o r a s ta y " [i ]n view of the substantial leg al issues prese nted on appe al, the har m to [ the moving pa

rty ] , the har

m to the public, and the compar ative lack of harm to [the non-moving pa rty ]"). Thus, I

would require that the Secre tary establish that the balanc e of the re maining f actor s mili tate in favor of a stay

. See Standard Havens , E. I. Du Po nt d e Ne mo ur s , Cuomo , Roland Mach. , and W as h. Me tro . A re a Tran sit , a ll su pra

.
II. Irre parable Harm

I a g r e e w it

h th e ma jo r it y ' s c o n c lu s io n th a t th e r is k o f ir r e p ar a b le h ar m to th e Se c r etary

(or absenc e ther eof) weig hs ag ainst g rantingthe S ecr etar y ' s motion for a stay . I n short, Ido not believe that the Secr etar

y ' s expenditure of re source s constitutes irrepa rable harm. VA' s resourc es ar e limited only by cong ressional a

ppropriations. See U. S. C O N ST

. art. I , § 9, cl. 7 (" No Money shall be dra

wn fr om t he Tr e a sury , but in Cons e qu e nc e of Ap pr op ri a tio ns ma de by

L aw .

. . ." ). No thi ngpr oh ibi ts VA fr om seekin g an d o b taining a dditional appropriations fr om Congre ss in the event that a f lood of claims is r ece ived in the wake of our de cision in Haas

. I fu lly a c kn ow le dg e that th e Tr e a sury is

no t a l i m i t l e s s s o u r c e o f f u n d s

. N o n e t h e l e s s , i f v e t e r an s an d t h e i r s u r v i v o r s ar e m o t i v a te d to fi le claims afte r our de cision in Haas , V A w ill sti ll b e re qu ir e d to de ve lop e a c h a nd e ve ry on e of

the se claims reg ardle ss of how Haas i s u l t i m a t e l y d e c i d e d an d r e g ar d l e s s o f

w h e t h e r t h e C o u rts t ays adjudication of the se cla ims pend i n g Haas . T hat is , ma ny of the re so ur c e s th e Se c re tary c la ims would be expended wa stefully should Haas be over

turned on a

ppeal would e ventually

be consume d by the development of these c laims, regardless of when or how they are de cided

. Moreove r, eve n if the Secr etar

y preva ils in Haas , the Secr etar y will be obligated to c onsider these claims under othe r theories, suc h as direc t service connec tion. Se e Sc hr oe de r v . W est , 212 F.3d 1265, 1271 (F ed. Cir. 2000) (stating that the duty to assist "attac hes to the investig ation of all possible in-service cause s of that cur

rent disability , including those unknown to the veter an" ). The only additional costs thatI ag r ee wi t h t he major i t y t hat wh et her or not t he Secr et ar y woul d be abl e t o re coup an y s uch bene f i t s i s an open 5

q u e stio n tha t wo u ld no t b e a p p ro p ria te to d e c id e to d a y. A n te a t __, s l i p op. a t 5 n

. 1.

See T he A m eri can Le gi o n, ht t p : / / www

. l egi o n. o rg/ ; P ream b l e t o t he C o n stituti o n of T he A m eri can Le gi o n, 6
h ttp :// w w w .leg io n .o rg /? se c tio n = o u r_ le g io n & su b se c tio n = o l_ w h o

_ w e

_ a re & c o n te n t= o l_ w h o

_ w e

_ a re

.

See h t t p: / / ww w. dav

. or g / membe r s h i p/ docu men t s / 2006_an n u al _r epor t

. pdf , a t 2. 7

14 could be expended wastefully are the costs of re nderingrevised de cisions and the costs of r ecouping

an y b en ef i t s gra n t ed , as s u m i n g Haas is re ve rs e d. I re c og nize the se c os ts are lik e ly no t de min imi s, 5 but the Secre tary

has complete ly

failed to e st ab l i s h that they are substantial or irre para ble. See B LACK ' S L AW D I CT I O N A RY 801 (8th ed. 2004) ( defining"ir repa rable injury " as injury

"that cannot be a de qu a te ly

me a su re d or c omp e ns a te d by

mon e y " ); cf. Standard Have ns , 897 F.2d at 515 (finding irrep ar ab le injury

wher e a pa

rty , thr ou gh aff ida v its , established that, in the abse nce of a stay , a company is likely to suffer lay offs, im me dia te ins olv e nc y , a nd po ssi bly e xtinc tio n) ; UST v. United States , 831 F.2d 1028, 1032 ( Fed

. Cir. 1987) (findingthat expenses and ef forts expended in the de fe ns e of

lit ig a tio n do no t c on sti tut e " ir re pa ra ble inj ur y " ); Cuomo , 772 F.2d at 976-77 (dec lining to find irrepa

rable harm ba sed upon mere unproven spe culation).

The issues conside red in the majority ' s order in the two para g raphs be g inning with " Second" and " Third" in pa

rt I I .B wer e not r aised by the Secre tary in his mot ion for a sta

y . I t is the Secreta

ry who bea rs the burde n of establishing that a stay is w arr anted. Be cause these issues were not raised by the Se c re tary

in h is m oti on

fo r a sta y and be c a us e Mr . Ri ba

ud o has no t had the op po rt un ity to addre ss them, Ibelieve that they are not appropriate issues for the Court to consider.

F ur the rm or e , I

c ann ot a g re e wi th t

he ma jor ity ' s c on sid e ratio n of ho w t od ay ' s d e c isi on wi ll aff ect ve tera ns service org anizations and parties possessingrec ords re levant to a ny claim af fec ted b y Haas . As to the interests of ve tera ns service org anizations, I note that The A merica n L eg ion broug ht its own petiti on, identical to Mr. Ribaudo' s, on behalf of its members. See A m. Legion v. Nicholson , 21 Vet.App. 1 ( 2007) (dismissing The Americ an L eg ion's pe tition, i dentical to Mr. Ribaudo' s, for lack of standing ), appeal filed (F ed. Cir. Ma r. 29, 2007). The Ame rica n L eg ion's Web sit e bil ls T he Am e ri c an L e g ion a s the natio n' s larg e st v e te ra ns se rv ic e or g anizatio n a

nd c la ims ne arl y 3,000,000 members. Fur thermore , in Ramsey , su

pra , t h e p e t i t i o n e r

w a s r e p r e s e n t e d

b y a t t o r n e ys 6

e mpl oy e d b y

th e Di sable d A me ri c an V e te ra ns (D AV ), wh ic h h a s, a c c or din g to i ts a nnua l r e po rt , near ly 1,400,000 members. Although this Court soug ht briefs fr om amici curia e, American Legion 7 v. Nicholson , 20 Vet.App. 481 ( 2006) (e n banc or der) , no veter ans org anization or individual entered an appe ara

nce a s amicus s upporting the S ecr etar y

. I n fac t, The Amer ican L eg ion (the only amicus appea ring in this case ) supported Mr. Ribaudo' s petition. Ribaudo , 20 Ve t.A pp . at 5 55 . T o s ug g e st that not gr anting the Secr etar y ' s motion fo r a stay

would adver sely

aff ect these org anizations presume s t h at t hey

are actingag ainst the interests of the ir members. I do not ag ree with such a presumption. Finally , as empha siz ed above , assistance in the development of claims conduc ted by these o rga n i z ati ons as well as r esourc es expended by any other pa rty possessing r eleva

nt rec ordsT he no nm o vi ng pa rt i es whose i nt erest s I consi d er are M r. R i b aud o and other cl ai m ant s si m i l arl y s i t uat ed who 8
have cl ai m s t hat wo ul d be s t ayed i f t he C o urt grant ed t he Se cret ary ' s m o t i o n, such as t ho se who f i l ed af f i d avi t s i n s up p o rt

o f M r. R ib a u d o ' s o p p o sitio n to the S e c re ta ry' s m o tio n fo r a stay. T o lim it c o n sid e ra tio n so le ly t o M r. R ib a u d o w o u ld tur n a b lind e ye to the lar g e r e ff e c t o f gra n ting a sta y.
15 mu st occur reg ardle ss of the re sult in Haas an d r e g ar d l e s s o f

w h e nan y c l a i m s a f

f e c t e d b y Haas are adjudicate d.

I n conclusion, I

believe the Secre tary

has not shown that he would b e i rr ep arably harme d should the Court not gra nt the stay

and, ac cording ly , this factor w eig hs ag ainst g rantingthe S e c r e t ar y' s m o t i o nf

o r a s t ay.

III. Im pact on Nonm oving Par ties

Ialso ag ree with t h e m ajority that the potential for ha

rm to the nonmoving pa

rties weig hs ag ainst g ranting the Secre tary ' s motion. Neve rtheless, I wish to e mphasize the seriousness of the 8 diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) that the Secr etar y has dete rmined to be a ssociated with Ag ent Or ang e e xpos ur e . H e re is the e nti re lis t:

Chloracne or other a cnef

orm disease consistent with chlorac ne Ty pe 2 d ia be te s ( a lso kn ow n a s T y

pe I Idia be te s me lli tus or

a du lt- on se t di a

be te s) Hod gkin's dis e as e Chro niclymphoc

y tic le ukemia M u l t i p l emy e l o ma N o n - H o d g k i n ' s l y mp h o ma Acute a nd subacute periphe ral ne uropathy Porphy ria c utanea

tarda Prostate cancer Re sp ira tor y c anc e rs (ca

ncer of the lung , bronchus, lar y nx , or trac hea) So f t

- t i s s u es a r c o ma (other than osteosarc oma, chondr osarc oma, Kaposi' s sarc oma, or mesothelioma)
38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (2006) ( emphasis adde d). The majority of these conditions a re c ance rs that ca

n be life thre atening . In Ramsey , when we confr onted this issue the first time, the claims were r elated to t inn itu s, a dis e a se of the e ar that cou ld n ot b e re a so na bly c on sid e re d li fe thr e a te nin g . B ut, in t his

ca s e, t h e s er i o u s , l i fe

- t h r e a t en i n g n at u re o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s t h at h av e b ee nl i n k edt o Age n tOr an ge
e xpos ur e c ann ot b e ov e rs tate d. Th a t ve te ra ns su ff e ri ngfr om the se lif

e -t hr e a te nin g c on dit ion s c ou ld die whil e the Secreta

ry ' s appea l of Haas is pe nding is a fac tor Ibelieve me rits gr eate r we ight than the majority

has assig ned to it. Se e an te at __, slip op. at 6.
Additionally , Ifind wholly unpersua sive the asse rtion made b y t h e S ecretar y that Mr. Ribaudo (and other

simil arly situated claimants) w ould be made whole should Haas be af firmed on

a pp e a l. T he Se c re tary

dis re g ard s th e ob vio us re a lity that, sho uld no sta y be g ra nte d, su c h c la ima

nts16

would have mone y

in hand sooner. G iven that VA doe s not pay interest on r et ro ac t i v e awa rds of benef its, see Sandstrom v. Principi , 35 8 F .3 d 13 76 (F e d. Cir

. 20 04 ), de layingthe pa y me nt o f b e ne fi ts

wo uld no t r e nd e r s uc h c la ima nts wh ol e mo netar ily

be c a us e the fa ilure to p ro vid e be ne fi ts immediately

would have substantial r eper cussions. See, e.g., Marc us v. Sullivan , 926 F.2d 604, 614 (7th Cir. 1991) (" The Sec reta ry argues that cla imants who ar e eventually succe ssful in the administrative proc ess ca n obtain full bene fi t s , though only retroa ctively . A delayed re ceipt of dis a bil it y benef

its , h ow e ve r, c ann ot s uf

fi c e to m a ke the c la ima

nt who le . A ny

de lay po te nti a lly

su bje c ts c la ima

nts to d e te ri or a tin g he a lth , a nd e ve n d e a th. Cla ima

nts ne e d to re c e ive fu

nd s p ro mpt ly beca use they use their be nefits t o p u rcha se the ve ry nece ssities of life." (citations omitted)). Ul tim a te ly , h ow e ve r, the ri sk tha t vet e ra ns may die wi tho ut t

he ir c la ims havin g be e n d e ve lop e d is fa r m or e c omp e lli ngin my we ig hin g of ha rm s. Any a c c ru e d- be ne fi ts cl a ims ba se d on thos e ve te ra ns ' entitlements will be adver sely aff ecte d beca

use ac crue d benef

its may only be aw arde d based on evidenc e bef

ore V A at the time of a

veter an' s death. See 38 U.S. C

. § 5 1 2 1

. T h e v ery rea l risk of i r r e p ar a b l e h ar m t o v e t e r an s w i t h c l a i m s a f f e c t e d b y Haas weig hs strong ly ag ainst g rantingthe Secre tary ' s stay

motion.

IV . P ublic Int e r e st
When consideringwher e the inter est of the public lies in this matter, Ifind this case similar to Standard Havens , w here the F e de ra l Cir c uit ob se rv e d th a t th e pa

rt ie s' argume nts " e sse nti a lly negat e on e ano th er" and th at "th e fou rt h fac to r fav ors nei th er pa rt y ." Standard Havens , 897 F.2d at 516. On one ha

nd, the Secr etar

y play s the role of

the g uardia

n of the public fisc. On the other hand, Mr. R ibaudo appeals to the gene ral patriotic notion that Congr ess chose to g ive spec ial consideration to those who put their l ives on the l ine during a time of war i n service to our country . Although the public has an inter est in compensatingveter ans for their sac rifice s for our country , the publ ic has no interest in awa

rding compensation to thos e who a re not leg ally

entitled to i t

. Ne verthe less, the people' s repr esentatives have made clea r that timely adjudications should be the g oal of VA. See, e.g., 140 C ONG

. R EC

. S4758 ( 1994) (statement of Sen. Rockefe ller) ( stating that "if the rea lity is that it takes months or y ear s to resolve a claim, the individual claimant is not being aff orded pr oper treatment. To forc e a ve tera n to wait for more than 2 y ear s for a [Board] decision – af ter he or she ha s a lr e a dy

wa ite d o ve r 2 00 da

y s f or a re g ion a l of

fi c e de c isi on

on th e ori ginal cla im – is

un c on sc ion a

ble ." ). I t is tr

ue that, w ith ou t g ra

nti ng a sta y , s ome oth e r v e te ra

ns may have to w a it longe r for the adjudication o f t h ei r cl aims. Howeve r, the a djudication of the most serious ca ses (such a s those involving vete rans with ser ious h ealth or financial issues) c an be e x pedited. See 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2) (B ). Ther e is simply no way for the Court to find that these contra dictory int e re sts fa

vo r on e pa

rt y or the oth e r. Th e c omp e tin g pu bli c int e re sts c ite d b y

e a c h p art y are e qu a lly

co mp el l i n g.
As to the majority ' s consideration of the publ i c i n tere st, Idispute the asser tion that not g ra nti ng a sta y wo uld pu t a bur de n on the a dju dic a tio n sy ste m. Sur e ly g ra nti ng the sta

y wo uld , a lbe it temporar ily , relievesome of the bur dens on the adjudication sy stem. Howeve r, t he S ecr etar y has not established the de g ree t o wh i ch g ranting the stay would relieve the burde n. As I have ma de cle ar above, whether

these Haas -re lated cla ims are a djudicated now or at some poi nt in the future , theyI al so agree wi t h Jud ge K a so ld ' s a sse rt i o n ( p o st at

__ n. 2 1 , s l i p op

. at 28 n. 2 1 ) t hat , by consi d eri ng t he 9
S e c r e t a r y 's c l a i m s o f

i r r e p a r a b l e h a r m a s p a r t o f t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , t h e m a j o r i t y i s g i v i n g d o u b l e e f f e c t t o t h e S e c r e t a r y 's

c la im s. S e e C u o mo , 772 F. 2d at 978 ( s ummari l y di s mi s s i ng ar gu ment s made r ega r di ng t he publ i c i nt er es t "s i nce t hey

ess ent i al l y rehears e p et i t i o ners ' arguments ab o ut t he i rr ep arab le ha rm" ). R egard l ess of und er what head i ng t he C o urt

co nsi d ers t hem , I f

i nd t he Se cret ary ' s argum ent s unco nvi nci ng.
17 must be develope d and adjudicated in acc ordanc e with law. See, e .g., 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A. A lt h o u g h th e Se c r e ta

r y an d th e ma

jo r it y s u g g e s t th a t th e a d

ju d ic a ti o n of non- Haas -r e late d c la ims would be dela

y ed by the adju d ication of Haas -re lated cla ims, that is not nece ssarily the ca se. De nyingthe Se c re tary ' s mo tio n me re ly pr e se rv e s the status qu o, wh e re de c isi on s w ill be iss ue d in the ordinar

y course of business and, g ener ally , in the order in which the cla ims were rec eived. See 38 U.S.C. § 7107. Requiring the Sec reta ry simply to adjudicate c laims in the ordinary course of bu si nes s wou ld no t "add[ ] to an alread y ov erbu rden ed s y st em. " Mason v. Nicholson , 20 Vet.App. 27 9, 28 9 (20 06 ). Sur e ly , if the Se c re tary ' s motio n for a sta y is d e nie d, the Se c re tary

wi ll a dju dic a te

some Haas -r e late d c la ims and may have to e xpe nd a dd iti on a l r e so ur c e s r e a dju dic a tin g su c h c la ims if Haas is r ever sed on appea l. Howeve r, many of the claims filed a fter Haas iss ue d ar e un lik e ly to 9 be deve loped and a djudicated be fore the Haas appea l is resolved.

I n addition, denying the Secre tary ' s motion would not require the i mmediate adjudication of

a ll Haas -re lated claims. Surely some indeterminate number of ve tera ns who have claims that have nothing to do with Haas wo uld have the a dju dic a tio n of the ir c la ims de lay e d f or an in de te rm inate pe ri od of tim e . B ut i t is no t a s if the Se c re tary mus t se t a ll o the r c la ims a sid e in o rd e r t o d e c ide tho se related to Haas . F ina lly , th a t th e numbe r o f v ete rans and the a mou nt o f t ime is i nd e te rm ina ble further illust rate s the S ecr etar y ' s failure to produce an adequate argument, that is, one supported by more than va g ue, unsubstantiated a ssertions, in support of his motion.

Th e Se c re tary ha s a sse rt e d: " B a se d on inf or matio n p ro vid e d b y

the De fe ns e Manp ow e r D a ta Center, the Haas decision could e x tend the pre sumptio n o f ex p o s ure to he rbicide to a s many as approximately

832,000 veter ans not previously cover ed." Secre tary ' s Motion at 10. Although the maj ori ty char act eri z es t hi s as ser ti on as "n ot di sp ut ed" ( an te at

_ _ , s l i p o p

. at 8 ), Ifi n d

t h e S ec re t ary 's

a sse rt ion that Haas could af

fec t 8 3 2 , 0 0 0 v eter ans to be spec ious at best. First, such a n unsubstantiated and unsupported statement in a plea ding is not evide nce. T he Secr etar y cites no

a u t h o r i t y t o s u

p p o rth i s a s s e rt i o nt h a t8 3 2 , 0 0 0 v e t e r an s m ay b e a f f e c t e d b y Haas . The Sec reta

ry provides no af

fidavits (whi ch , u nlike briefs, must contain oaths or aff irmations as to the ac cura cy of the ir c on te nt) in s up po rt

of his mot ion . H e sim

ply pr e se nts a

ba ld, un su

bs tanti a te d s tate me nt i n a plea ding. See U. S. V ET

. A PP

. R. 21(a) (stating that petitioners for ext raor dinary relief must, among oth e r t hin g s, " inc lud e an ap pe nd ix co nta ini ngc op ie s o f a ny or de r o r d e c isi on

or any oth e r d oc ume nts

nece ssary to understand a

nd support the petition") , 27(a) (obser ving that motions may be " supported by br ie fs , a ff

ida vit s, or oth e r pa

pe rs " ), 28 (a ) (s tatin g that bri e fs mus t c on ta in, amon g oth e r t hin g s,

" an a rgume nt .

. . wi th c itatio ns to t he a uth or iti e s and pa

rt s of the re c or d on a

pp e a l re lie d on " ). Thus , even if Mr. Ribaudo does not o b j ec t t o t he number

provided by

the Secr etar

y , the ac cura cy

of the Secre tary ' s assertion has not be en esta blished.18

Ev e n a ssumin g that th e S ecret ary did pr ov ide a

c op y of thi s e sti mate fr om t

he De fe ns e Manpowe r Data Center that 832,000 v eterans may be entitled to pre sumptive service connec tion under Haas , I am left with seve ral que stions: How many veter ans suffe r fr om a disease for whic h p re s u mp t i v e s erv i ce co n n ec t i o nb as edo n ex p o s u re t o Age n t Or an ge i s wa rr an t ed ? W h at p er ce n t age of those veter ans will ever f ile a cla im with VA? How many claims will be dec ided bef ore Haas is finally decide d? How ca

n any one know whether these veter ans will be aw arde d presumptive ser vice

connec tion based on the Secre tary ' s interpre tation of 38 U.S.C. § 1116(f) – that is, how can a ny one know that all 832,000 veter ans neve r set foot on land in the Republic of Vie tnam? How is it known that th e se ve te ra

ns c ou ld n ot be e nti tle d to ser vic e c onne c tio n ba se d upo n othe r the or ie s? Th e re is

s i mp l y n o w ay t o kn o wt h e an s w e r s t o a l l o f t h e s e qu e s t i o n s u n t i l s u c h c l a i m s ar e a d j u d i c a t e d

. In th is r e g ar d , I n o te th e e qu iv o c a l la n g u a g e u s e d in th e Se c r e ta r y ' s mo ti o n : " [T] he Haas decision

c oul d extend the presumption of exposure t o herbic ide to as m any as 832,000 veter ans not previously

cover ed." Secre tary ' s Motion at 10 (empha ses added). Absent any proof pr ovided by

the Se c re tary , I

sim ply c ann ot a c c e pt t

he sp e c iou s su g g e sti on

tha t Haas could cr eate entitlement for 832 , 0 0 0 v eterans. See Cuomo , 772 F.2d at 977 (observingthat asser ted har ms are te sted " for substantiality , likelihood of occur renc e and adequa cy of proof" ). Thus, Icannot f ind that this factor

w e i g h s i nf

a v o r o f g r an t i n g t h e S e c r e t ar

y' s m o t i o nf

o r a s t ay.

V. Balancin g of the Fac tors

Be cause Ido not find any

of the fa ctors to militate in favor of gra nting the Secre tary ' s motion for a stay , Ifind that the Secr etar y has not proven that a stay of ca ses p ending bef

ore V A af

fec ted b y Haas is warr anted. Thus, I would deny

the Secr etar

y ' s motion and Idissent from the Cou rt 's

co n t ra ry h o l d i n g.

The c ircumstance s in Standard Havens pr ov ide an a pt c on tr a st t o th e c ir c ums tanc e s in thi s
ca s e. I n Standard Havens , th e F e d e r a l Ci r c u it g r an te d a mo ti o n f o r a s ta y p e n d in g a

p p e al af ter fi nd ing the mov ing pa

rt y de mon str a te d ( 1) a

su bs tanti a l le g a l qu e sti on

on the me ri ts; (2 ) t

hat it wo uld

su ff e r c a ta str op hic and

ir re pa ra ble ha rm sh ou ld a sta y no t be g ra

nte d; ( 3) that th e no nmo vin g pa rt y pr e se nte d me re specul ati ve harm; an d ( 4) a ne utr a l sh ow inga s to the pu bli c int e re st Sta nd

ar d Have ns , 897 F.2d at 516. I n contra st, in thi s case , althoug h Ifind eleme nts ( 1) and (4) above to be the same a s in Standard Havens , Ifind the showing s reg ardingelem en t s (2 ) an d (3) above to be dif fe re nt fro m Standard Havens . The Sec reta ry (the moving party

) has shown only

speculative possibili ty

of har m – harm that has not be en es t ab l i s h ed to be irre para ble – that could re sult from denyin g a stay , wher eas the nonmoving pa rties (c laimants with appea ls that may be af fec ted by Haas ) have shown the potential for signific ant irre para

ble har m should a stay

be g rante d.

Iconce de that, if the ma

jority had shar ed my

view that the Sec reta

ry ' s motion shoul d be de nie d, the po ssi bil ity

ari se s th a t th e Court

mig ht n e ve r g ra

nt a sim ila r mot ion by the Se c re tary in t h e fu t u re, r ender ing the proce dure w e outlined in Ribaudo and Ramsey an empty

exercise. Howeve r, seve ral times above Iobserve d that the Secre tary has made broad, va g ue, spec ious, and wh oll y un su

pp or te d a lle g a tio ns in su

pp or t of his mot ion

. Sho uld the Se c re tary pr e se nt any c on c re te proof r elated to his asse rtions, Iwould be re ady to revisit the balanc ing of harms. Providing proofA dd i t i onal l y , ot her f act ors mi gh t af

f ect wh et her a s t ay i s war r ant ed, s uch as t he s er i ous nes s of t he di s eas es 10
i n v ol v ed, t h e n u mber of c l ai ms a f

f ec t ed, or t h e cl ar i t y of

t h e l aw a f

t er a Cour t de ci s i on i s r en der ed.

See ant e at __, s l i p op. a t 8 n

. 2. 11

19 of asse rted justifications for a stay is more than just a mere formality

. Until the S ecr etar y does so, his ar g uments cannot be considere d any thing more than spec ulative, and I cannot a g ree with the

m a j o r i t y' s d e c i s i o nt h a ta

s t ay o f c a s e s p e n d i n g b e f

o r e V A t h a tar e a f

f e c t e d b y Haas is w arr anted at this ti me. 10

Ido ag ree that the Court cannot be oblivious t o the ef fec t of ou r dec isions on the gr eate r adjudication proc ess. Nonethe less, we must consider the law a bove all else . VA' s claims backlog has bee n well documente d. Clear l y , t h e goal of VAis to adjudicate a ll backlog g ed cla ims. The eff ect of today ' s decision is to sug g est that it make s more sense to a djudicate som e c l ai m s b efore others. I t is, most likely , the most effic ient result. Howeve r, the only matter for

consideration now is whether the Secre tary

has m ade a s howing that a stay is warr anted usingthe four f actor s identified in Ribaudo , Ramsey , and Standard Havens . Ba sed upon the c asela w g overningstay s of judg ment pe nd ing app e a l , I d o n o t b e l i e v e t h e S e c r e t ar y h a s m a d e t h e n e c e s s ar

y s h o w i n g t h a t s u c h a s ta y is

war rante d in this case.

KASOL D, Judge , dissenting: Today , the Court g rants the Sec reta ry ' s reque st to iss ue thre e sta y or de rs pe nd in g res olutio n o f a n a pp e a l to the U. S. Co ur

t of Ap pe a ls f

or the F e de ra l Cir c uit (F eder al Circuit) of this Court' s decision in Haas v. Nicholson , 20 Vet. Ap p

. 2 5 7 (2006), appeal docke ted , No. 2007-7037 (F ed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2006), to wit: (1) stay the ef fec t of the Court' s decision in Haas , ( 2 ) s t ay t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f ane s t i m a t e d

1 , 5 0 0 c l a i m s p o t e n t i a l l y a f f e c t e d b y Haas that are 11

no w o n a pp e a l at th e B oa

rd , a nd (3 ) s tay the pr oc e ssi ng of c la ims by an est imate d 832 ,0 00 c la ima nts and potential cla imants that m ay be af fec ted by the Ha ss de c isi on . A s d isc us se d b e low , th e on ly issue proper ly

befor e the Court in this case is the Se cr et ar y 's request to stay the proc essing of the

e s t i m a t e d 1 , 5 0 0 c l a i m s p o t e n t i a l l y a f f e c t e d b y Haas that are now on appea l at t he B oard. Arevie w of the mer its of the Secre tary ' s other stay reque sts should be denied for pruden t i al , i f not jurisd ictio na l, r e a so ns . M or e ov e r, be c a us e the Se c re tary

utt e rl y fa ils to d e mon str a te that a sta y in t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f

c l a i m s o na

p p e a l t o t h e B o ar d

t h a tm i g h tb e a f

f e c t e d b y Haas is w arr ante d in

thi s instance, his re ques t s h o u l d be denie d. See Standard Havens Prods., Inc . v. Ge ncor Indus., Inc

. , 897 F.2d 511, 512 ( Fe d. Cir. 1990) (burd en on applica nt to make nec essar

y showing s for g rant of

s t ay). It h er ef

o re re s p ec t fu l l y

d i s s en tfr o m t h e C o u rt 's gra n to f t h e m o t i o nfo r as t ay o f p ro ce ed i n gs below.

I. The Haas and Ribau do Cases

Pertinent to a

ny discussion of the Secre tary ' s reque st f or the stay order s is an understa nding of the Haas decision, the Court' s rec ent dec ision in Ribaudo , and the Sec reta ry ' s rea ction to both. I n Haas , the C o u rt re

j ec t ed a r ece nt interpretation by the Secr etar

y of his regulations that, for purposes of aff

ording the presumption of exposure to herbic ides provided by statute and re g ulation,T he V i et nam Servi ce M ed al general l y i s award ed , i nt er al i a, "to al l m e m b e rs of t he A rme d Fo rces o f t he 12
U n i t ed S t a t e s s e r v i n g a t a n y t i m e b e t w e e n J u l y 4 , 1 9 6 5 a n d M a r c h 2 8 , 1 9 7 3 , i n Vi e t n a m , i t s c o n t i g u o u s w a t e r s , or

a irsp a c e , t h e re o v e r." D e p a rtm e n t o f D e fe n se R e g u la tio n 1 3 4 8 .3 3 -M p a ra . C 6 .6 .1 (2 0 0 6 ); see a lso Exe c. O r der N o. 1 1 , 2 3 1 (19 6 5 ).

G i ve n the ind ep en d en t st atus o f t he B o ard an d sep ar a te st atuto ry du t y of t he B o ard C ha i rm an t o p ro ce ss 13
cl ai ms bef

ore t he B oard pr om pt l y , an d at t i mes expedi t i ous l y , t he aut hor i t y of t he Secr et ar y t o di r ect t he B oard Chai r man to sta y the p ro c e ssin g o f cla im s a t t h e B o a rd is i tse lf q u e stio n a b le

. See , e. g. , 38 U

. S. C . § § 7 1 0 1 (C ha i rm an i s un der

s uper vi s i on of

t he Secr et ar y , but Chai r man h as admi ni s t r at i ve cont r ol of t he B oard an d C hai r man may onl y be r emo ved f r om h i s of

f i ce by t h e Pre s i den t ) , 7104 ( "Fi n al dec i s i on s on s u ch appe al s s h al l be made b y t he B o ard."), 7107( a) ( 1) (cl ai m on ap p eal t o t he B o ard " shal l b e co nsi d ered and d eci d ed i n regul ar o rder acco rding t o i t s p l ace up o n t he d o cket " ), 7 1 1 2 (exped i t i o us p roce ss i ng by B o ard o f remand s f

rom C o urt ). N evert hel ess , t he B o ard C hai rma n i ss ued t he st ay o rder,

a n d the S e c re ta ry' s a u tho rity to d ire c t him to d o so is ne ithe r o the rw ise ra ise d b y this m o tio n no r b e fo re the C o u rt.

20 service in the Republic of Vietnam did not include thos e who serve d on naval ships off the coast of Vi e tna m e ve n th ou g h the y ha d be e n awa rd e d the Vi e tna

m Se rv ic e Me da l (V SM)

. I n re nd e ri ngthi s 12 holding, the Court noted t he long standing interpre tation of the Secr etar y to the contra

ry , as expressed in the VA Adjudication Procedure Manual [here inafter M21-1], the fact that this long s t an ding interpre tation was not inconsistent w ith statute or regulation, a nd the fac t that M21- 1 provisions such as the one discussed in Haas had the f orce and ef

fec t of Depa

rtmen t regulations. See H aas , 20 Vet.App. at 269-75. The Court fur ther set a side cha

ng es in the M21-1 made in Febr uary 2002 beca u s e t hey wer e promulg ated without notice a nd opportunity

to comment, in violation of the Administrative Procedur es Ac t (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 553(a)

. See H aas , 20 Vet.App. at 275-77.

After Haas was issued, the Sec reta ry direc ted the B oard Chair

man to stay

the proc essing of

c l a i m s o n a

p p e a l t o t h e B o ar d t h a t m i g h t b e a f f e c t e d b y Haas

. See R ibaudo , 20 Vet.App. at 553. The B o ar d Ch a ir ma nc o mp li e d

an d is s u e d B o ar d Ch a ir ma n ' s M e mo r an d

u m 0 1

- 0 6

- 2 4. Se e id . The

13 S e c r e t ar y a l s o n o t i f

i e d t h o s e w h o s e c l a i m s m i g h t b e a f f e c t e d b y Haas , but whose cla ims were not y et on appe al at the B oard, that their claims would not be proc essed until o t herw ise direc ted. See Opposition to t he Secr etar y ' s Motion fo r a S tay

Pending A

ppeal at 18 (filed F eb. 7, 2007) (" Op po sit ion " ) ( no tin g tha t se ve ra l ve te ra

ns " have re c e ive d a le tte r fr om the VA statin g that his c la im might be aff

ecte d by the Court's decision in Haas , an d that the VA wi ll n ot t a ke any a c tio n o n th is

c la im unti l a

uth or ize d to do so by

the VAGe ne ra l Co un se l" ); see also id. at Exhi bit C-G, par as. 2-5.

As a result of the Boa

rd Chairman' s memorandum, Mr. Ribaudo' s claim – which is pending b e f o r e t h e B o ar d

an d d e t e r m i n e d t o b e p o t e n t i a l l y a f

f e c t e d b y Haas – was stay ed. Mr. Ribaudo filed a petition with the Court seeking extraordinary relief . He a rg ued that neither

the Secr etar

y nor the Boa rd Chairman ha d authority to stay the proc essing of cla ims on appea l to the B oard. In Ribaudo , the Court g ener ally

discussed the Sec reta

ry ' s a uth o r it y to s tay the proc essing of cla ims below pending

re so lut ion of an a pp e a l of a de c isi on of the Court

. Th e Court a lso state d that it ha d ju ri sd ic tio n to sta y the e ff e c t of any of its de c isi on s pe nd ing a

pp e a l to the F e de ra l Cir c uit and fu rt he r no te d that th is could include stay

ing the proce ssing of

claims below. How ever , wi th reg ard to the only action befor e the Court – Mr. Ribaudo' s petition – the Court rescinded B oard Chair man' s Memorandum 01- 06-24 that instit u t ed the stay of ca ses at the B oard a nd direc ted the Secr etar

y to proce ss the administrative appe als that had be en stay ed by that memorandum. See 20 Vet.App. at 561.21 II. Issu e P roperly Before t he Court

I t is axiom atic that the Court should not de cide matters that are not properly befor e it. See , e.g. , Iron Arrow Honor Soc'y v. He ckle r , 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983) ("F eder al courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot ca ses bec ause the ir cons t i t utional authority extends only

to actual c ases or controve rsies." ); Skinner v. De rwinski , 1 Ve t.A pp . 2, 3 (1 99 0) (" c ourt s may no t in any c a se , e ve n in the intere st of justice, extend their jurisdiction where none exists"); Mokal v . Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) ( althoug h not constituti onally bound there by , Court adopts "Art i cl e I I Icase or controve rsy

rubric" as a pr

udential matter) . I t is also ax iomatic that any stay action should be limited in i ts s c op e to r e str a in o nly tho se a sp e c ts o f t

he c a se th a t g ive ri se to t he e ff e c ts j us tif yingits imposit ion, s ee , e.g. , Hi ne s v . D 'Ar toi

s , 5 31 F .2 d 7 26 , 7 33 (5 th C ir . 1 97 6) ; De lli nge r v . M itc he ll , 442 F.2d 782, 787 ( D.C. Cir. 1971). I n this instance , only the reque st to stay the proc essing of ca ses at the B oard pe nding the appea l in Haas is p ro pe rl y be fo re us

. A. Not Properly

Be fore the Court: Whether Cases Not Ye t on Appeal to the B oard

Should Be Stay ed
Of sig nificanc e to the Secr etar y ' s mot io n in this inst ance , Ribaudo did not direc t the Secre tary to proce ss all claims and it did not re sc ind any a c tio n b y the Se c re tary

wi th r e g ard

to any c la ims other than those pending on appea l to the Boa rd. I ndeed, as noted above , the Secr etar y has stopped p r o c e s s i n g c l a i m s n o t ye t o n a p p e a l t o t h e B o ar d

an d p o t e n t i a l l y a f

f e c t e d b y Haas , and that dire ctive has not bee n challeng ed her e. More over, Mr. Ribaudo is not aff ecte d by the Secr etar

y ' s order staying the proc e s s in g o f c la im s n o t y e t a t th e B o ar d , w h ic h me an s th e r e is n o p arty b e f o r e u s w it

h any sta nd ing to op po se the Se c re tary ' s re qu e st – the re is no c a se or c on tr ov e rs y wi th re g ard to claims p o t e n t i a l l y a f

f e c t e d b y Haas but not y et bef

ore the Boa

rd.
Assuming arg uendo that the S ecr etar y does not have the authority to stay claims not y et on appea l to the Boa

rd, and that is a big a ssumption, see Ribaudo , 20 Vet.App. at 554 n. 2 (stating that the Court would rende r cle ar in its decision the scope of the Secre tary ' s authority to stay proce ssing of cla ims, and then holding in that decision onl y that, absent reg ulation, the Secr etar y did not have

a u t h o r i t y t o s t ay p r o c e s s i n g o f c l a i m s a t t h e B o ar d a s d o i n g s o c o n t r a v e n e d s e c t i on 71 07 ); T o bler v. De rwinski , 2 Ve t.A

pp

. 8, 12 (1 99 1) (h old ing that " it w ou ld b e re a so na ble fo r t he B oa rd to s tay its p ro ce ed i n gs i n a cas e th at ar gu ab l y fa l l s wi t h i n t h e pr ec ed en t " of an o t h er o nap p ea l (q u o t i n g Ithaca Coll. v. NL RB , 623 F .2 d 2 24 , 2 28 (2 d Ci r. 19 80 )) ; see also Ribaudo , 20 Vet.App. at 562 n.7 (Kasold, J ., concur ring in part and dissenting in part) (noting that the opinion in Ribaudo has no application to whe the r t

he Se c re tary

may sta y c la ims no t y e t at th e B oa rd ); but see Ramse

y v. Nicholson , 20 Ve t.A pp . 16, 37 (2 00 6) (s tatin g in d ic ta that th e Se c re tary

did no t ha ve a uth or ity to s tay c la ims not y et at the Board pending an appeal of a decision of t his Court), the C ourt should decide that issue

o n l y wh en p roperly

prese nted as a

case or controve rsy , with parties of inter est on ea ch side. See Mokal , su pra ; se e als o S

ho e n v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 456, 457 (1994) (Court does not issue a dvisory opinions)." Z eu s, d eterm i ne d t o av en ge him self o n P ro m ethe us, pr ese nted t his f em m e fatale t o E p i m et heu s ( P r om et heus' 14
b ro the r) , f

irst a rm ing h e r w ith a j a r c o n ta inin g a ll the e v ils o f t h e w o rld . A fter E p im e the u s fo o lishly a c c e p te d the gift, Pa n d o r a p r o c e e d e d t o o p e n t h e j a r , t h e r e b y l o o s i n g a p a n o p l y o f t o r m e n t s u p o n h u man i t y

. " U ni t ed St at es v

. Wat s on , 3 8 6 F .3 d 3 0 4 , 3 0 8 n.2 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (c iti n g R . W a rn e r, E N C Y C L O PE D I A O F W OR L D M YTHO L OGY 29

- 3 1 (19 7 5 ))

.

T h is nu m b e r o f ac tua l a n d p o te n tial c la im s – 8 3 2 ,0 0 0 – is a r e d he rr ing a n d is f o r c o n sid e ra tio n , i f at a ll, o n ly 15

a s the to ta lit y o f cla im s a ff e c te d b y H aas sho uld t he S ec retary' s ap p ea l b e d en i ed

. R eg ard l ess o f t he S ec retary' s succ ess
on a ppea l , e ac h c l ai m st i l l req u i r es pr oce s s i n g , a n d t h er e i s n o ba s i s f or c on cl u di n g a l l of

t h es e cl ai ms w ou l d be

su b m itt e d , p ro c e sse d , a n d p a id b e fo re th e F e d e ra l C irc u it re n d e rs it s d e c isio n . W h a te v e r th e nu m b e r is, ho w e v e r, it is

c e rta inly la rg e r th a n the e stim a te d 1 ,5 0 0 c la im s o n a p p e a l to the B o a rd tha t m igh t b e a ff e c te d b y H aas , a n d i t i s g ood

rea so n to no t sub st i t ute the C o urt f o r t he S ec retary i n de cid i ng w he t he r all o f t he se c l aim s sho uld b e stayed i n the fi rst ins ta n c e

.

A s no t ed i n m y co ncurrence i n Ri baudo , t h er e a r e n o re g u l at i on s c u r r en t l y e x t an t t h at pr ov i de au t h or i t y f or 16
the B o a rd C h a irm a n to sta y c la im s a t t h e B o a rd p e n d ing a n a p p e a l o f a d e c isio n o f t h e C o u rt. See 20 V et

. App. a t 561 (K asold, J. , co ncurri ng i n pa rt and dis sent i ng i n pa rt ). B ecause such regul at i o ns have no t be en p rom ul gat ed , t he C o urt

nee d not deci de whe t her au t hor i zi ng a s t ay at t he B oard woul d be a p er mi s s i bl e e xer ci s e of t he Secr et ar y ' s au t hor i t y un der 38 U

. S. C. § 501.

22 Pruden t i al reasons also argue for not opening the prove rbial Pandora ' s Box. Wherea s 14 R ibaudo res c ind s th e a dmi nis tr a tiv e sta y of c la ims on

a pp e a l to the B oa

rd that are po te nti a lly

a f f e c t e d b y Haas (a

bo ut 1 ,500), the ma

jor ity tod ay e xer c ise a

uth or ity ov e r a ll c la ima

nts wh os e
c l a i m s m i g h tb e a f

f e c t e d b y Haas , including those p o tential claimants who may

file cla ims that

m i g h t b e a f

f e c t e d b y Haas , (estimated by

the Secr etar

y as over 832,000 ), and issue a

stay in the 15 proce ssing of

those claims, filed a

nd y et to be filed.

T h e C o u rti s i l l

- e qu i p p e d

t o s t e p i n t o t h e m an a g e m e n to f c l a i m s
- p r o c e s s i n g b y t h e S e c r e t ar y. See 38 U. S

. C

. § 3 03 (Secr etar y is responsible for the "c ontrol, direction, and ma nag ement" of the de pa rtme nt) ; cf

. Norton v. So. Utah W

ilderness Alliance , 5 4 2 U

. S. 5 5 , 6 6

- 6 7 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ( n o ti n g th a t " [i ]f courts we re empower ed to enter g ener al orde rs compelling compliance with broad statutory mandates, the y

would nece ssarily

be empowe red, as we ll, to determine whe ther c ompliance wa s
a c hie ve d –

wh ic h w ou ld m e an th a t it wo uld ult imate ly

be c ome the ta sk

of the su perv isi ngc ourt , ra t h er t h an t h e a gen cy , t o wo rko u tco mp l i an ce wi t h t h e b ro ads t at u t o ry m an d at e, i n

j ec t i n g t h e j u d ge into day -t o-d ay

a g e nc y mana g e me nt" ). I nd e e d, thi s v e ry fa c t un de rl ie s th e ba lanc e str uc k in

rec og nizi ng an ag ency

head 's gen er al authority to stay the administrative proc essing of matters pending an ag ency

appea l of a c ase a ffe cting those matters. See Tobler , su pra

.
As we state d in Ribaudo , it is t he statutory mandate of

38 U.S.C. § 7107 – that claims on appea l to the Boa

rd be proce ssed promptly and in regular orde r – that re stricts the Secre tary or the Boa rd Chairman f

rom staying c laims on appea l to the Boa rd pending an appeal of a decision of the Court and in t he a bs e nc e of any re g ulatio n aut ho ri z in g suc h a c tio n. Th e numbe r o f c la ims 16 potentially

aff ecte d by our re view of stay

reque sts related to c laims on appea l to the B oard that might be af fec ted by a dec ision of the C o u rt t h at t h e Secr etar y has appe aled will nec essar ily be a muc h smaller number

than the entire u n i v er s e of claims below, and much mor e ame nable to judicialI note t hat t he f act o rs weighi ng agai nst grant i ng a s t ay i n t he p roce ss i ng of cl ai m s at t he B o ard gene ral l y are 17 appl i cabl e t o cons i dera t i on of a s t ay i n t he ef

f ect of t he H aas deci s i on, wi t h t he l at t er havi ng t he added f act or t hat a s t ay in th e e ff e c t o f H aas wi t hout a concomi t ant st ay i n t he proces s i ng of cl ai ms w oul d s eem t o s er ve nobo dy ' s i nt er es t , as le a st a s a rtic u la te d in the p le a d ing s, b e c a u se c la im s w o u ld b e d e n ie d , to the d issa tisf a c tio n o f t h e ve te ra n , o n ly t o pot en t i al l y g i v e r i s e t o t h e con ce r n of t h e Se cr et ar y t h at t h ey w ou l d t h en h av e t o be r ea dj u di ca t ed.

23 consideration of the matter. See Norton , su pra . Our re view of the motion should be li mited to the reque st for a stay

of cla ims on appeal to the B oard. See H ines and Dellinger , both su pra

.
B. N ot Properly

Be fore the Court: Whether the Eff ect of Haas Should Be Stay ed

Wit h reg ard to the Secre tary ' s reque st that the Court stay the ef fec t of the Haas case , Iag ree with my dissenting c olleagues that such a reque st should be broug ht under that c ase, a s instructed in Ribaudo . Inote, howeve r, that the he art of the Secre tary ' s reque st is not t he stay of the e ffe ct of Haas ; i ti s s t a y i n g t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f t h e c l a i m s p o t e n t i a l l y a f f e c t e d b y Haas . Under

the circ umstances, a g rant of the l atter obviates any need for the former be cause Haas will not be applied

a s l o n g a s t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f c l a i m s p o t e n t i a l l y a f

f e c t e d b y Ha as is s tay e d. Thus , th e re is n o n e e d to decide whether

the ef fec t of the Haas de c isi on

sh ou ld be sta

y e d and , a bs e nt t hat ne e d, a

sta y sh ou ld not be g rante d. 17
C. Properly

Be fore the Court: Whether Claims on Appeal to the B oard Should Be Stay ed
As noted, in Ribaudo we resc inded Boa rd Chairman' s Memorandum 01- 06-24 and dire cted t h e S ec re t ary t o p ro ce s s cl ai m s o n ap p ea l at t h e Bo ar d p re v i o u s l y s t ay ed b y t h e B o ar d

C h ai rm an 's Memorandum. In essenc e, by reque sting the Court to now stay the proce ssing of those claims, the Secre tary is asking us to stay

the ef fec t of our dec ision in Ribaudo . The pa rties have opposing interests in this m at t er , t h u s prese nting a case or controve rsy , and we have jur isdiction to st ay the eff ect of our cases, which can include s taying the proce ssing of claims, as we stated in Ribaudo

. See 2 0 V e t

. A p p

. a t5 6 0

. T h u s , t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r c l a i m s p o t e n t i a l l y a f

f e c t e d b y Haas th a t are on appea l to the Boa

rd should be stay ed is an is sue t hat i s proper ly befor e us, and it is the only issue that we should dec ide. See M okal , su pra

.
III. Th e Secr etar y Utte rly F ails To E stablish the Basis f or G ranting a Stay

I n assessing whether

a re quest for stay should be g rante d, the Court must consider whe ther the moving pa

rty has made a strong showing reg arding the likelihood of succe ss on appea l, whether there is irrepa

rable harm to the moving party , whether the issuance of a stay will substantially injure other pa rties intere sted in the proce eding , and whether the public interest is f urthere d by

a stay

. See Ribaudo , 20 Vet.App. at 560 (restating the te st enunciate d in Standard Havens Prods., Inc ., 897 F.2d

a t 51 2) ; s e e a ls o S

m it h I n t' l, I n c

. v

. H ug h es Tool Co. , 718 F.2d 1573, 1581 n. 7 ( Fe d. Cir. 1983) (whe re likelihood of suc cess " is less forc eful .

. . a movant would have to make a strong er showing of i rre para

ble harm in order to tip the balance of equity in his favor" ). Howe ver, the fac tors need not be g ive n e qu a l w e ig ht.24

When the moving pa

rty fails to establish a stronglikelihood of succe ss on appea l, the Court

may g ra nt t he sta y wh e n th e mov ingpa

rt y de mon str a te s a s ub st antia l c a se on the me ri ts –

tha t is , " ' qu e sti on s g oin g to t

he me ri ts s o s e ri ou s, su

bs tanti a l, d if

fi c ult and do ub tf ul, a s to m a ke the m a

fa ir g ro un d f or lit ig a tio n' " – b ut o nly

wh e n th e oth e r thr e e fa c tor s note d ab ov e c oll e c tiv e ly we ig h h e a vil y in the moving pa

rty ' s favor

. Standard Havens Prods., Inc

. , 8 9 7 F. 2 d at 5 1 3 (q u o t i n g Hamilton W atch Co. v. Benrus W

atch Co. , 2 06 F .2 d 7 38 , 7 40 (2 d Ci r. 19 53 )) ; se e als o Alas k a Ce nt. Ex pr ess , Inc. v

. United States , 51 Fe d. Cl. 227 (2001) ( if equities weig h heavily in favor of

maintaining status quo, court may g rant injunction wher e question ra ised is novel or close) . I n essenc e, the "mor e likely the plaintiff is to win, the less heavily need the balanc e of harms weig h in his favor ; the less likely he is to wi n, th e mo re need it wei gh in hi s fa vo r." Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc

. , 749 F.2d 380, 387-88 (7th Cir. 1984).

A. F ir st F a c tor – L ike lih oo d o f S uc c e ss
Assessing the likelihood of succe ss is perhaps the most diff icult of the fac tors beca

use, in a

re a l s ens e, it calls u

po n a Court to a sse ss i ts o wn

op ini on . In a

dis tr ic t c ourt

de c isi on or a sin g le judge decision of this Court, the likelihood-of-suc cess a naly sis truly

involves critiquing one ' s own decision. In this case, howe ver, the underly ing de cision, Haas, was issued by a thre e-judg e pane l of the Court, a

nd the likelihood of succe ss is being assessed by the full Court, including f our judg es that wer e not on the pane l that issued the Haas decision.

I n its essence , the Court in Haas s im p ly f o u n d th a t a lo n g s ta

n d in g in te r

p r e ta tion of the Secre tary as re flec ted in the M21-1 is not inconsistent w ith statute or regulation, that the M21-1 had the fo rc e and

e ff e c t of re g ulatio n, and that the Se c re tary ' s re c e ntl y re vis e d inte rp re tatio n of s tatut e and re g ulation w as not to be g iven defe renc e in light of his pre vious and long standing interpre tation. Fur ther, the Court fou n d that a re cent r evision of the M21-1 ha d no eff ect, a nd it was set aside beca use it was modified without notice a nd o p p o rt u n ity

to comment in violation of the APA. B e c a us e , as the ma

jor ity no te , the F e de ra l Circ uit ha s no jur isd ic tio n o ve r t he Court ' s f

ind ingwi th reg ard to fa cts, see 38 U. S.C. § 7 29 2; Forshey v . Principi , 284 F.3d 1335, 1359 (F ed. C i r. 2 0 0 2) (en ba nc), the C o u rt 's finding that the Secr etar y had a long standing interpre tation of statute and

re g ulatio n th a t w a s r e c e ntl y mod if ie d is sig nif

ic ant. Th is f

ind ingstr on g ly

su pp or ts the de c isi on

in Haas that the Secre tary ' s rec ently revised interpre tation should not be g iven defe renc e. See I NS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 446 n. 30 (1987) (maintaining that an ag ency ' s interpre tation of a statut e or re g ulatio n th a t c on fl ic ts w ith a pri or in te rp re tatio n is " ' e nti tle d to c on sid e ra bly le ss d ef er en ce ' t h an a c o n s i s t en t l y h el d age n cy v i ew " ( qu o t i n g W

att v. Alaska , 451 U.S. 259, 273 (1981)) ). More over , s e tt le d c ase la w under lies the conc lusion in Haas that the substantive provisions of the M2 1- 1 a dd

re ssi ngser vi ce in V ie tna m f or purp os e s o f t

he pr e sumpt ion

of e xpos ur e to h e r b ic id e s h a v e th e f

o r c e an d e f f e ct of law. See H

aas , 2 0 Ve t

. Ap p

. at 2 7 6 -7 6 (c i t i n g Hamilton v. Derwinski , 2 Vet.App. 671, 675 ( 1991), and Fugere v . Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 103, 107 ( 1990)).
The majority

avoid any

char acte rization that there is a likelihood of succe ss on a ppeal, a nd focus instea d on the serious a nd substantial nature of the i ssues, as well as the novelty of the issue. The majority ' s analy sis, however , ignor es the fa ct t hat t his fac tor does not stand alone. Rather, e venR el y i ng on St andar d H ave ns Pr ods ., I nc

. , 89 7 F.2d a t 5 1 2 , the m ajo ri t y seem f i xat ed on t he no t i o n t hat t he 18

g r an t of a s t ay "r es t s ent i r el y w i t h i n ou r di s cr et i on

. " A nt e at

__ , s l i p op

. at 4. T he Se cret ary , as m o vant , carri es t he b u rd e n to m a k e the n e c e ssa ry sho w ing s fo r g ra n t o f a sta y, s ee St an da r d H avens P r od s

. , I nc. , 8 9 7 F

. 2 d a t 51 2 , and he f ai l s t o m eet t hat burd en.

T he Secr et ar y has p r ovi ded t he C our t not hi ng b ut hi s b ar e and bal d as s er t i on – no af f i davi t , no hi s t ori cal 19
d a ta , no thin g

. S ee a lso su p ra n ot e 15.

See Repor t of

t h e Cha i r man , B oar d of V et er an s ' Appea l s , Fi s ca l Y ea r 2006, a t 21. 20

25 wh e n th e re is a

se ri ou s and su

bs tanti a l is su e inv olv e d, the tot a lity of the e qu iti e s n e ve rt

he le ss mu st

we igh heavily i n favor

of the status quo bef

ore a stay should be g rante d. See Standard Hav ens P r o ds., Inc. , 8 97 F .2 d at 51 3; Alaska Cent. Expre ss, Inc. , 51 Fe d. Cl. at 230 (if equities we i gh heavily in favor of maintaining status quo, court may g rant inj unction wher e question raised is nove l

o r c l o s e ( ci t i n g Standard Havens Prods., Inc , 897 F.2d at 513)). As is shown below, the Sec reta ry utt e rl y fa ils to d e mon str a te that th e re ma ini ngfa c tor s w e ig h in his fa vo r a t a ll, le t alo ne he a vil y

in his fa vo r. I nd e e d, a c c e pti ngargue nd o th e ma jor ity ' s c on c lus ion

tha t f a c tor s o ne and

fo ur we ig h in favor of t he S ecr etar

y while factors t wo and three weig h in favor of the nonmoving parties, e ven the

m aj o ri t y d o n o tch ar ac t er i z e t h e e q u i t i e s as we i gh i n g he av ily in favor of

the status quo. See 18 Standard Havens Prods., Inc

. and Alaska Cent. Expre ss, Inc. , both su

pra

.
B. Sec ond Fa ctor – Irre para ble Har m

The risk of anyha

rm to t he Sec re tary

in p ro c e e din g to p ro c e ss c la ims a t th e B oa rd is minuscu l e i n t h e g rand pic ture, a nd the risk of irr epar able ha rm is nonexi stent. Even if – a s the Secre tary posits without p re s enting any fac tual basis – the dec ision in Haas could extend the

19 presumption of Ag ent Ora ng e exposure to a

pproxi mately 832,000 veter ans not pr eviously cover ed, the orde r in Ribaudo , as noted, a ffe cts only the proc essing of the 1 , 5 00 claims pending befor e the Boa rd. More over, it i s u n l i k el y t h at all 1,500 of these claims will be proce ssed prior to a F eder al Circuit decision in Haas beca use there is a statutorily

presc ribed orde r of pr ocessingof cla ims at the Boa rd, which in fisc al y ear 2006 decide d 39,076 claims, with 40,265 pending at t he end of t he y ear

. 20 Simi larl y , d

ur ingthe a

pp e a l pe ri od , the a mou

nt of mon e y awa rd e d a nd pa id w ithre g ard

to c la ims on appea l to the Boa

rd is limit ed, and a

ny pay ments made may

be re couped should the Secr etar y preva il on appeal. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105(d), 3.114(b) ( 2006) (pr oviding f or seve ranc e of se rvice

con nect io n because of

a c ha ng e in o r i nte rp re tatio n o f a law) ; se e als o 3 8 C. F

. R. § 1

. 9 1 1 ( 2 0 0 6) (proc edure for c ollection of debts owe d by rea son of par

ticipation in a VA bene fits prog ram).

Fur ther, with reg ard to administrative burde ns and costs, the c laims potentially aff ecte d by Haas wi ll h a ve to b e pr oc e sse d in any e ve nt, so the on ly

a dd iti on a l bu

rd e n o r c os t a sso c iate d w ith proce ssing them now is that related t o future rec oupment eff orts. Although the majority highlig ht this additional burden associated with abo ut 832,000 potential claims, the burden is orde rs of mag nitude less when c onsidering only those claims on appe al to the Boa rd. More over, the costs of administering the ef

fec t of an appea l ha s been reje cted as a fac tor for c onsideration in whethe r a stay should be gra

nted or denied. See U

ST, Inc. v. U

nited States , 831 F.2d 1028, 1032 (F ed. Cir. 1987)26

(expenses and e ffor

t involved in litigation do not constitute "irr epar able injury ") . Simpl y stated, and

a s e ve n d e te rm ine d b y

the ma jor ity , a ny ha rm to the Se c re tary

is n ot i rr e pa

ra ble ; it is n ot " a via ble th reat of seri ou s harm whi ch can no t b e un do ne. " Zenith Radio Cor p. v. United States , 710 F.2d 806, 809 (F ed. Cir. 1983).

C. Third Fa ctor – Substantial I njury to Other Parties Intere sted in the Procee ding

I n contra st to an assessment of the eff ect on the Sec reta

ry , which involves an a ssessment of any "ir repa rable harm," the t hird fac tor looks to whether the i ssuance of a stay will cause " substantial injury " to parties interested in t he proc eeding

. Se e Cap ac c hio nev . Ch ar lot te -M e c k le nb ur g S c ho ols , 19 0 F .R. D. 17 0, 17 5 ( W.D .N .C. 19 99 ). Gi ve n th e natur e of t he cla im s in q ue sti on – d isa bil ity compensation c laims of veter ans who ser ved in Vietnam dur ing the war – the har m to the individual veter an whose claim is stayed pendingappea l is significa nt. See Cervantez v. Sullivan , 719 F. Supp. 89 9, 90 6 ( E. D. Ca l.1 98 9) (r e je c tin g argume nt t

hat r e tr oa c tiv e pa

y me nt o f d isa

bil ity be ne fi ts

re me die d d e nia l of c la im l a te r f ound to b e imp ro pe r) ; see also Schwe iker v . Chili cky , 487 U.S. 412, 428 (1988) ( stating that a wrong ful termination of benef its upon which a claimant "de pend[s] for the very nece ssities of life ca

nnot be fully

reme di ed b y

the ' belated r estoration of ba ck bene fits'" ); Leschniok v . Hec kler , 7 1 3 F. 2 d 5 2 0 , 5 2 4 (9 t h C i r. 1 9 8 3 ) ( "W e f ai l t o co m p r e h e n d t h e S ec re t ary 's

argume nt that fin anc ia l com pe ns a tio n at som e futur e date , sho uld the c la ima nts surv ive and

pr e va il, mitigates the hardship which is visited upon claimants a nd their families each a

nd ever y day .")

.
I n opposition t o the Secr etar y ' s reque st for a stay , information has been submitt ed with reg ard to two vetera

ns who serve d in the Navy during the Vietnam War and were awar ded the VSM, and whose c laims are on a

ppeal to the B oard a

nd aff ecte d by the Court's de cision here in. I n one ca se, a vete ran was di ag nosed with diabete s mellitus, peripheral ne uropathy related to the diabete s that

may be re la te d to Ag e nt O ra

ng e e xpos ur e , a

nd se ve ra l ot he r d isa bil iti e s. Hi s o nly

so ur c e of mon thl y income is $1,332 in Social Security Disability

I ncome. His claim has be en pendingsince 2003. He

a sse rt s th a t he c an a ff

or d to pa y fo r p re sc ri pti on s, g ro c e ri e s, and uti lit ie s, bu t c ann ot a ff

or d to purcha se any

thing other

than the absolute ne cessities of life and cannot pay off any debt, thus causing a g reat deal of stre ss and ec onomic hardship. See Opposition at Ex h. E.

I n the o th e r c a s e , a v e te r an w a s d ia g n o s e d w it h c h r o n ic ly

mp h o c y ti c le u k e mi a ( CL L ) that may be re lated to Ag ent Ora

ng e exposure. His only source of monthly income is $1,600 in S ocial Se cu ri t y Disability

I ncome. His c laim has bee n pending since 2004. He asser ts that he has completely

depleted his saving s and retire ment acc ounts, ha s been unable to pa y back- taxes owed, cannot a ffor d to pay

part of his c hild-support pay ments, and has be en har assed by bill col l ector s beca use he ha s been una

ble to pay approximately

$1,000 in hospital bil l s re l at ed t o h i s CL L . He further asser ts that his ins uranc e a n d utilit y expenses are $1,000 a month, that he ca nnot affor d homeowner ' s insurance , has diffic ulty maintaining the most basic lifesty le, and c annot af ford to take his child re n fo r an i n ex pensive mea l when he ha s custody of them. See Opposition at Ex h. G. Iwh ole he art e dly

a g re e wi th t

he ma jor ity in its co nc lus ion that "the de lay su ff e re d by the se c la ima

nts is con seq uen ti al, " an te at __, slip op. at 6, but Ifurther note that these a re only two examples out of27

1,500 cl ai m s p ending dec ision by the B oard; we can only

speculate how many

of these ve tera

ns whose c laims are sta

y ed at the B oard a

re similarly

aff licted.

D. F ourt h F a c tor – Pu bli c I nte re st

Th e fi nal f

a c tor , in thi s in sta nc e , is the e a sie st t o a sse ss b e c a us e it w e ig hs e xtra or din ari ly

a g a ins t th e Se c re tary , and sc re a ms i n f

a vo r o f n ot g ra

nti ngthe sta

y . A s Pr e sid e nt A

br aham L inc oln

so mov ing ly

and pr of ound ly stated : "To c are fo r h im w ho sh a ll h a ve bo rn e the battl e and fo r h is wi do w, and

his or ph an. " Th is i s n ot o nly

the motto o f V A, it is a c or e va lue of our N a tio n. I t is expressed in numerous wa y s, n o t the least of whic h is the "unique ly pro-c laimant char acte r of the veter ans' benef

its sy stem" created by

Congr ess, Di

sa ble d A m. Ve te ra ns v . S

e c 'y o f V e te ra ns Af fai rs , 327 F.3d 1339, 1349 (F ed. Cir. 2003) . This sy stem provides the be nefit of the doubt to the c laimant when the e vidence does not weig h ag ainst the claim, see 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). It also require s the prompt rende ring of dec isions in reg ular orde r by the B oard, see 38 U.S.C. § 7107, the ex peditious rende ring of dec isions by the ag ency o f orig inal jurisdiction on remand fr om the Boa rd, see 38 U.S.C. § 5109B, and the e x peditious render ing of decisions by

the B oard on r emand f

rom the Court, see 38 U.S.C. § 7112.

I t is we ll re c og nize d that the fa c t cla ims inv olv e Soc ia l Sec ur ity dis a bil ity c omp e ns a tio n is a fa ctor that we ighs he av i l y ag ainst a stay

in the proce ssing of

those claims; more so vete rans benef its! S e e Lo p e z v

. H e c kler , 7 1 3 F. 2 d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir. 1983), rev'd on other grounds , 46 3 U .S. 13 28 (1 98 3) ; se e also W alte rs v . Na t'l A sso c . o

f R ad iat ion Su rv iv or

s , 473 U.S. 305, 312 (1985) (acknow ledg ing that VA benefits are simil ar to the Socia l Security benef its). I ndeed, in suc h

c a se s,
the question of the public inter est is insepara ble from the issue relating to the r elative hardship suff

ere d by litigants. . . . I t is not onl y the har m to the individuals i nvolved that we must consider

in assessing the public intere st. Our society as a w hole suffe rs wh e n w e ne g le c t th e po or , th e hung ry , th e dis a ble d, or wh e n we de pr ive the m of the ir ri g hts or pr ivi le g e s. Soc ie ty ' s in te re st l ie s o n th e sid e of a ff or din g fa ir

pr oc e dure s to

a ll p e rs on s, e ve n th ou g h th e e xpe nd iture of g ov e rnme nta l f

un ds is re qu ir e d. I t w ou ld be tra g ic, not only from the standpoint of the individuals involved but also fr om the standpoint of society , wer e poor, elder ly , disabled people to be wrong fully deprive d of e sse nti a l be ne fi ts f

or any per iod

of tim e . I t w ou ld b e un fo rt un a te , b ut f

ar l e ss harmful to socie ty , wer e the g overnme nt to succee d in overturningthe pre liminary inj un c tio n b ut b e un a

ble to r e c ou

p a ll o r a po rt ion of the fu nd s.
Lopez , 7 13 F .2 d at 14 37 -3 8. Th e publi c int e re st i s in se pa ra ble fr om t

he g ov e rnme nt' s in te re st i n providing for the public w elfa re, a nd when, a s here , the balance of the ot her factor s weig h in favor of the ve tera

n, the balanc e is overw hel m i n gl y i n fa v or of de nying a stay that would delay

the proce ssing of

veter ans cla ims. See id. at 1437.In se a rc h fo r p u b lic p o licy t h e m a jo rity g ive the p o ssib ili ty o f re c o u p m e n t a c tio n d o u b le d u ty in th a t th is 21

p o ss i b i l i t y al so f

o rms t he b asi s o f

t he m ajo ri t y ' s a n a lys i s as t o harm, al b ei t not i rr ep arab l e, t hat t he Se cret ary m i ght

e n c o u n te r sh o u ld a sta y no t b e d ire c te d a n d his a p p e a l ultim a te ly gr a n te d

. S e e C u o m o v

. Nu c le a r R e g u la to ry C o m m 'n , 77 2 F. 2d 972 , 978 ( D

. C

. Ci r

. 198 5) ( s ummari l y di s mi s s i ng ar gu ment s made r ega rd i ng t he publ i c i nt er es t "s i nce t hey

es s en t i al l y r eh ea r s e pet i t i on er s ' a r g u men t s a bou t t h e i r r epa r abl e h ar m")

.

T h e Se cr et ar y w as e x pect ed to p roce s s s ome 910, 000 c l ai ms , w i t h t h e B oar d pr oce s s i n g a bou t 39, 000 22

ap p eal s, in fi scal y ear 20 0 6

. I n t hi s co nt ext , even i f recoup m ent act i o n were necess ary wi t h regard t o al l of t he

a p p ro x im a te ly 1 ,5 0 0 c la im s o n a p p e a l t o the B o a rd th a t m igh t b e a ff e c te d b y H a a s, t he ef

f ect on t he o veral l pro cess i ng
o f all cla im s b e lo w w o u ld b e ins ign ifi c a n t, a n d ju st a n o the r c o u rs e o f b u sin e ss. S im ilar ly, the d o llar s a sso c ia te d w ith the c la im s a t th e B o a rd tha t m igh t b e a ff e c te d b y H aas , ev e n if a ll w e re p ro c e sse d d u rin g the a p p e a l p e rio d , i s i n s i g n i f i ca n t i n a bu dg et t h at a l l oca t ed appr ox i mat el y $31. 3 bi l l i on t o vet er ans ' di s abi l i t y comp ens at i on cl ai ms i n f i s cal
y ear 2 0 0 6

. See B u d g e t o f the U nit e d S t a t e s G over nment , FY 200 6 , at ht t p: / / www. whi t ehous e. gov/ om b/ budget / f y 20 06 / vet er ans

. ht ml ( l as t vi s i t e d M a r

. 23, 200 7). I n f ur t her cont r as t , t hi s pal es i n com pari s on t o t he bi l l i ons spent o n f i gh t i ng t he V i et nam W ar , wh i ch was f ough t by t he vet er ans af f ect ed by an y s t ay i n t hi s case. U nl i ke t ho se exp enses , the S ecret ary c an st o p the p ayment o f b enef i t s i f he i s success f

ul on ap p eal , and he

can i ni t i at e r ecoupment procee di ng s i f he s o deems i t appropri at e.

28 F ur the r, dir e c tly

pe rt ine nt t o th is c a se is the fa c t that Con g re ss ha s e xplic itl y e xpre sse d p ub lic policy in 38 U.S.C. § 7107 t o the ef fec t that claims on appea l to the Boa rd ar e to b e proc essed promptly and in re g ular orde r with limit ed deviation from that regular orde r, as we so rec og nized and held in Ribaudo

. The ex amples di scussed in the above section ce rtainly underlie this Cong ressional intent, and they

exemplify

why issuance o f a stay

in the circ umstances of

this case amounts to a reje ction of that Cong ressional intent. More over, a lthough se ction 7107 was enacte d befor e cr eation of the Court, it ha s been amende d on sever al occa sions since that time without any authorization or in d i c a t i o n t h a t c l a i m s s h o u l d b e s t ay e d a t t h e B o ar d p e n d i n g a p p e a l o f a c a s e t h a t mig ht a ff e c t a decision on those cla ims. See Goodye ar Atomic Corp. v. Miller , 4 8 6 U

. S. 1 7 4 , 1 8 4

- 8 5 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ( " We g e ne ra lly pr e sume that Co ng re ss i s k no wl e dg e a

ble a bo ut e xistin g law p e rt ine nt to legislatio n it

enac ts."). T his is not to say the C ourt could not g rant a stay in the processing of cla ims at the Boa rd should the other fac tors war rant it, but public policy , standing alone, we ighs a g ainst doing so, a s does the totality

of the c ircumstance s in this i nstance

.
Al tho ug h in its dis c us sio n o f p os sib le ir re pa ra ble ha rm su ff e re d b y the Se c re tary

the ma jor ity consider the need on the part of the Secre tary to insti tute eff

orts to rec oup pay

ments made to vete rans should Haas ult imate ly be ov e rt ur ne d, the ana ly sis is fa

ult y be c a us e it ru ns of f t he re d h e rr inge sti mate of over 832,000 potential claims being proce ssed pending resolution of the Haas a pp e a l. I t is a lso

21 interesting that the en ba

nc Court in Ribaudo criticized the s cope of Boa rd Chairman' s Memorandum 01 -0 6- 24 fo r t

he ve ry re a so n th at it

wa s n ot l imi te d to a

sta y pe nd ingde c isi on

by the F e de ra l Cir c uit , but cou l d ex t en d for many y ear s until decision by

the Supreme Court or e ven leg islative action by Congr ess, see Ribaudo , 20 Vet.App. at 559, yet the majority today lay out this very

possibili ty

of an extended delay

in the adjudicati o n of the a ppeals in Haas – during which the major ity note that possibly hundreds of

thousands of cla ims mi g ht be process ed and pa id only to require rec oupment

ac t i o n to the detriment of the pr ocessing of other c laims should Haas b e o v e rtu r n e d

– a s a publi c policy consider at i o n in favor of granting the sta y . T he Se c re tary ' s uns up po rt e d a rgume nt n ot o nly g ro ssl y e xag g e rate s th e e ff

e c t of no t g ra nti nga sta y , thi s ty

pe o f e xtre me -p ote nti a l- fe ar a na ly sis 22 ignor es the re ality

that the ver

y cre ation of the Court and the rig ht to judicial revie w car ry with it theT he grant of a st ay und er t he ci rcum st ances of t hi s case – wit h, am o ng other f act o rs , uns ub st ant i at ed and 23 pat ent l y i nf

l at ed r epre s ent at i ons t hat t he Secr et ar y woul d be f orce d t o deci de hu ndr eds o f t hous ands o f

cl ai ms a nd s uf

f er sig n ifi c a n t b u rd e n s re la te d to tho se d e c isio n s – m a k e s it d iff ic u lt to e n v isio n un d e r w h a t circ u m sta n c e s a sta y re q u e st w ill be den i ed ( s h or t of

per h aps an ar bi t r ar y an d ca pr i ci ou s re qu es t – wh i ch , as a pr ac t i ca l ma t t er , s h i f t s t h e bu r den s of

pr oof f r om t he Secr et ar y t o t h e v e t e r a n )

. I t a l s o e f f e c t i v e l y pl a c e s t h e Cou r t i n t h e po s i t i on of pr ov i di n g a r u bb e r
- s t a mp ap p roval f

o r t he Se cre tary t o do exact l y what t he en b anc C o urt unani m o usl y hel d i n Ri baudo t hat s t at ut e and

c o n g re ssio n a l p o licy p re c lud e d him fro m d o ing

. See Ri baudo , s up ra ; s e e al s o N. L. R. B. v

. Br own , 380 U

. S. 278, 291 (19 6 5 ) ( " R evi ewing co urt s are not o b l i ged to st and a si d e and rubb ers t am p t hei r af f i rma nce o f

ad m i ni st rat i ve d eci si o ns t hat t hey d eem i nco nsi st ent wi t h a s t at ut o ry m and at e o r t hat f rus t rat e t he co ngres si o nal po l i cy und erl y i ng a s t at ut e. " ).

29 fac t that the Secre tary

has to r eadjudicate thousands, even hundreds of thousands of cla ims, based on our dec isions on a regular basis, nece ssarily delay ing the proce ssing of other c laims. This is a cost of jud ic ia l r e vie w a

nd a ve ry re a so n why the c os ts o f i mpl e me nti ngjud ic ia l de c isi on s are no t a fa c tor to consider when asse ssing whe ther to stay actions below. See U

ST, Inc. , su

pra

.
IV. P artial G rant of a Stay

I n appar ent re cog nition that it s broad stay o rder will ensnare many whose individual ci rc u m stance s cry

out for prompt dec ision as well as appa rent re cog nition of the futility of having

ever y such individual a

pply to the Court f

or an e x ception to the stay , the majority expli citly note that the S ecr etar

y has equitable authority that is not bounded by the s tay order

. The majority also ca rve out an exception to the stay order that permits the Boa rd to pr ocess case s befor e it. B oth are illusory relief from the ha

rsh ef fec ts of the stay , akin to telling the chicke n he is sa fe beca use he is guarde d by the fox. The Secre tary

has appe aled Haas

. H e d o e s n o t w an t t o p r o c e s s c l a i m s a f f e c t e d b y Haas – indeed, that is the ba sis of his moti on for a stay – and, g iven the option not to, there is absolutely no
re a so n to c on c lud e that he wo uld g ra nt e qu ita ble re lie f o r that th e Board wo uld pr oc e ss a

c la im applying a

decision wi th which the Secr etar y disag ree s. Cf

. Padgett v. Nicholson , 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 (F ed. Cir. 2007) (f

inding it re asonable to be lieve, absent dire ction otherwise, that the Secre tary will continue in his course of a ction).

V. Conclusion

I n this inst ance , the only

issue proper ly befor e the Court is the Secre tary ' s reque st to stay the proce ssing of

claims on appe al to the Boa rd that might be aff

ecte d by the Haas decision, which is now on appea l to the F eder al Circuit. T he Secr etar y falls fa r short of de monstrating that the proce ssing of claims on appe al to the Boa rd should be stay ed. He has not demonstrate d a substantial likelihood of

succe ss on appea l in the Haas case

. To the deg ree the issues on appe al ar e ser ious and substantial, he has not demonstrate d that the other f actor s weig h heavily

in favor of

the status quo, to w it: he ha s not de mon str a te d th a t he wo uld su ff e r ir re pa ra ble ha rm , tha t oth e r pa rt ie s int e re ste d in the pr oc e e din g wi ll not suffer substantial injury , or that public policy weig hs in favor of

a stay . I ndeed, the totality of the

c ir c ums tanc e s and fa c ts in thi s c a se ov e rwhe lmi ng ly de mon str a te jus t the op po sit e

. Th e re is s imp ly 23 no basis for g rantingthe Secr etar y ' s motion, and it shoul d be denie d.