1 T houg h not dis posi tiv e of the is sue pre se ntly

be f ore us , the Cour

t not es that, due to a

n a dm inis tra

tiv e er ror , the Cour

t f ailed to act promptly

af ter the issuance of

the Federal Circuit's m andate.

1 Thi s version includ es the e rrat a dated Jun e 30, 2009-e

UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O . 01-0945(E) (08-11370)
ANDR EW J . N E WM AN ,A P P ELL A NT ,
V.
E RIC K. S HINSEKI , S EC RE T A RYO F V ET ER A NS A FFAIRS ,A PP EL L EE

. Be fore HAGEL , L ANCE, and DA VI S, J ud ge s.
O R D E R On May 31, 2001, Andre w J . Newma n filed a Notice of Appea l from a F ebrua ry 28, 2001, Boa rd of Ve tera

ns' Appea ls (Boa

rd) de cision. On J une 16, 2004, the Court issued a de cision vacating and re manding the B oard' s Fe bruar y 2001 decision bec ause V A fa iled to adequately notify Mr. Newma n of who was responsible for obtaining evidenc e nec essar y to substantiate his claim pursuant to s e c tio n 5 10 3( a ) o f the Ve te ra ns Cla ims As sis tanc e Ac t of 2 00 0, Pub . L . N o. 10 6- 47 5, 11 4 St a t. 2096. The Court entered its judg ment on J uly 8, 2004. The Sec reta

ry appea led that dec ision to t he Un ite d St a te s Co ur

t of Ap pe a ls f

or the F e de ra l Cir c uit

(F e de ra l Cir cui t) , w hic h s tay e d it s adjudication of the matter pending its dispos ition of Roan v. Pe ake , 269 Fe d.Appx. 954 (Fed. Cir. 2008), which w as in turn stay ed pending the Fe dera l Circ uit's disposition of Sanders v. Nicholson , 48 7 F .3 d 881 (F e d. Cir . 200 7) . O nM arc h 4 , 2 00 7, Mr . N e wm an d ie d. Ne ith e r M r. Ne wm an' s e state nor his lawy er notified the Fe dera l Circuit. On M arc h 11, 2008, the Feder al C ircuit lifted its stay of the proc eeding s and summaril y af fi rm ed the June 2004 Court decision. Newman v. Pe ake , 272 Fe d.App. 899 (F ed. Cir. 2008) (per curium orde r). The Fe dera l Circuit issued its mandate on Ma y 2, 20 08 , o rd e ri ngthi s c ourt to r e mand Mr . Ne wm an' s a pp e a l to the B oa

rd fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s. 1

On May 5, 20 08 , th is C ourt

re c e ive d a

n o rd e r f ro m th e F e de ra l Cir c uit

statin g that th is Court's July

2004 judgme nt was summarily aff irmed and, acc ording ly , this Court i ssued mandate on J une 10, 2008. An application for attorney ' s fee s pursuant to the Equa l Acce ss to J ustice Ac t (EAJA) was timely

filed on Jul y

7, 2008. On the same day , Mr. Newman' s attorneyalso filed with this Court a notice of

Mr. N ewman's de ath alongwith a motion to subst itute Mr. Newma n' s widow for he r husband for

the under ly ing c laim for VA c ompensation and the EA J A application.2 Rule 43 (a) of the Federal Rules of

Appellate P rocedu re p rovides that "[i] f a party d ies a f ter a no tice of

appeal has been f

iled

or w hile a proc ee dingis pe ndingin the c ourt of a ppea ls , the dec ede nt’s pe rs onal re pre se ntativ e m ay be s ubst itut ed as a

party on
m otion f ile d w ith the c irc uit cl er

k by the re pre se ntativ e or by

a ny pa rty ."

3 Federal Rule of C ivil P rocedu re 25 (a) pro vides that " [ i] f a party dies and the claim is not ex tingui shed, th e c ou rt m ay order substi tuti on of the pro per party

. A m otio n f or s ub stitut ion m ay be m ade by any party or by the decedent's succe ssor or representative. If the m otion is not m ade w ithi n 90 da y s af te r s er v ic e of a s tate m ent

noti ng the de at

h, the

ac tion by or ag ai nst

the de ce dent

m ust be dis m is se d."
2 When an appe llant dies with a n appea l pending befor e this Court and there are no qualified substitut es to continue the a ction, the Court ty pically v acates the under lying B oard de cision and dismiss es the a

ppeal. S e e L a n di c h o v

. B r o wn , 7 Ve t.A pp . 4 2, 54 (1 99 4) ; see also Zevalk ink v. Br own , 102 F.3d 1236, 1243- 44 (F ed. Cir. 1996); Morton v. Gobe r , 14 Vet.App. 174 ( 200 0 ) (per curiam order ). Her e, however, Mr. Newma n died whil e his appea l was pe nding be fore the Fe dera l Circuit, which issued its decision aff irming this Court' s decision appa rently unawa re of his death.
As noted above , the Fe dera l Circuit aff irmed t his Court's J une 16, 2004, decision re manding the Fe bruar

y 28, 2001, Boa

rd decision. Newman , 2 72 F e d. Ap p. 89 9. Ho we ve r, Mr . N e wm an' s d e a th b ef o r e t h e F ed er al C i rc u i th adre n d er edi t s d ec i s i o n , co u p l edwi thth e f

ai l ure o f M r. Ne wm an 's counsel to inform that tribunal of the death, frustrate s this C ourt' s ability to implement the F eder al Circuit's or der. Claims for e ntitlement to VA benef its based on servic e-c onnecte d conditions do not survive a ve tera

n' s death. Ri c ha rd

v . W est , 161 F.3d 719, 721 (F ed. Cir. 1998). The Fe dera l Rules of Appe llate P roce dure a llow a dec edent' s repr esentative to file a motion to be substitut ed on an appea l that is pending be fore a cour t o f ap peals. F ED .R.A PP .P. 43 (a ). Ho we ve r, a t so me po int a 2 failure to substitut e a pr operpa rty moots a pending case
. Ortiz v. Dodge , 126 F.3d 545, 550 ( 3rd Cir. 1997). More over, the officia l notes to Appellate Proce dure Rule 43( a) indicat e t h at the dra fters i n tended the r

ule to function similarly

to Civi l Procedure Rule 25(a) . F ED .R.A PP .P. 43(a), 1963 A dv i s o r y C o m m i t t e e N o t e
. T h a tR u l e r e qu i r e s a m o t i o nf

o r s u b s t i tu t i o nt o b e m a d e w i th i n9 0 d ays afte r ser vice of a stateme nt noting a pa

rty ' s death. F ED .R.C IV .P. 25 (a )( 1). Thus, the window for 3 fi l i n g a m o t i o n t o s u

b s t i tu t e ap ar t y o p en s o n ce a s u gges t i o no f d ea tho r o th er n o t i ce i s fi l ed , al th o u gh the Court may

deny the motion to subst itute if the notice of death is made "long afte r the de ath" and "circu ms t a n c e s h a v e a ri sen rend in g itun fai r t o al lo w s ub st it ut io n. " F ED . R. C IV . P. 25(a), 1963 Advisory Commi ttee Note.
This Court is not in a position to determine whethe r a sug g est i o n o f death or some other notification was submitted to the Feder al C ircuit. This Court is also not in a posi tion to determine whether the fa ilure to subs t i t u te Mr. Ne wman' s widow in her husba nd' s stead duringthe y ear following his death may have rende red his appea l befor e the Fe dera l Circuit moot. Se e Or tiz , 126 F.3d at 550. F inally , this Court is incapable of dete rminingwhether the Fe dera l Circuit would adopt this Court's rule that the unique nature of vete rans law require s that an attorney inform the Court of leg ally signific ant events aff ecting jurisdiction over a case
. Se e Cle ar yv . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 201, 202 (1996) ( per c urium order ) (Ivers, J., concurr ing) (" Counsel [ has] the obli gat i o n t o ad vise the4 T he Fe der al Ci rc uit al so did not hav e an opportuni ty

to det er m ine w het he r M r. Ne wm an' s attorne y

m ade any re pre se ntations before the Federal Circuit, and, if so, w heth er the attorney

had an ob ligation to consu lt w ith his client before ta king those actions. Cf

. Mod el Rules of

P rofes sion al Cond uct 1. 4(2 ) ("A l aw y er shall . . . rea sonab ly

consul t w ith th e c lient abo ut th e m eans by w hich the cl ie nt' s obje ct iv es ar e to be a cc om plis hed) ; Iov ino v . W

ate rs on , 27 4 F.2 d 41 , 51 (2 nd Ci r. 19 59 ) (h old ing that an attorn ey " m ust as sur e him se lf

of the c ontinue d e x is te nce of his c lie nt be f

ore he ta k es a f f irm at iv e st eps in the c lie nt' s beha lf ." ). 3 court of suc h actions wher e
. . . the outcome of that action does or could af fec t the Court's a ctions.")

. 4

I f substituti on wer e to occ ur any wher e, it should be at the c ourt that had jurisdiction over the
c la im at th e tim e of the de a th, wh ic h in thi s c a se is the F e de ra l Cir c uit . T he F e de ra l Cir c uit sh ou ld have be en informe d of Mr. Newma n' s death prior to its aff

irmation of t he C ourt' s decision one year afte r the date that he died. Acc ording ly , the Court holds that mandate should not have been e ntere d at this Court, and further

holds that Mr. Newma

n' s death while his appe al was pe nding be for e the Fe dera l Circuit constitut es an " exceptional circ umstance" sufficie nt t o r e c a llth e is s u a n c e o f ma n d a te. Serra v. Nicholson , 19 Vet.App. 268, 272 ( 2005), c iti ng Mc Naron v . B ro wn , 10 Vet.App. 61 ( 1997) (holding that a p eti tioner' s death prior to the issuance of

mandate c onstitut es an e x ceptional circ umsta n c e )

. T h e r e f

o r e , th e Co u rt w il l d e n y

M s
. N e w ma

n ' s mo ti o nto b e s u

b s ti tute d f o r her husband on his underlying a ppeal of the Fe bruar

y 2001 Boa

rd decision. Additionally , the Court conclude s that, absent substitut ion or dismiss al of the appea l by the Fe dera l Circuit, this Court does
no t ha ve jur isd ic tio n ov e r Mr

. Ne wm an' s a pp lic a tio n fo r atto rn e y ' s f e e s p ur su ant t o E AJA b e c a us e the Court has not issued a fina l judgment in the matter

. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)( B)

. Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is
ORDERED that Ms. Newma n' s J uly 8, 2008, motion for a substitution of party is denied. I t is further,
ORDERED that the Court' s J une 10, 2008, mandate is RECAL L ED. I t is further ORDERED that, if Mrs. Newma n desires to c ontinue to pursue this action, she f ile a motion befor e the F eder al Circuit notifying that court of he r husband' s death and seek substitution pursuant to F e de ra l Ru le of

Ap pe llate Pr oc e dure 43 (a ) no t late r tha n 10 da y s a ft e r t he date of thi s o rd e r. I t is further4

ORDERED that i f Mrs. Newma n files a motion for substi tution with the Fe dera l Circuit that
s h e f i l e a c o p y w i t ht h i s C o u rtn o tl a t e r

th an 5 P

. M

. o n th e 1 0 th d ay a f t e r th e d a t e o f th i s o r d e r
. If such a copyis not filed in accor dance with this order, the Clerk sha ll dism iss as matters over which the Court curr ently

lacks jurisdiction both the appe al of the F ebrua ry 28, 2001, Bo ar d d ec i s ion as
we ll a s th e July

7, 20 08 , p e tit ion fo r attor ne y ' s fe e s and e xpe ns e s file d pur su ant to the Eq ua l A c c e ss to J ustice Ac t. DATED: June 11, 2009 Copies to:

L ouis J . Geor g e, Esq.
VA Ge nera l Counsel (027) PER CU RI AM

.