UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 01-688
J A M ES F. M A T LOCK , A PP EL L ANT ,
V
. ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

Be fore KRAMER, Chief Judge , and STEI NB ERG and GREENE, J ud ge s. O R D E R
Th e a pp e lla nt, thr ou g h c ou ns el, seek s r e vie w o f a Marc h 2 9, 20 01 , B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Appea ls (Boa

rd) de cision that denied a Depa rtment of Veterans Affa irs (VA) disability ratinghighe r than 30% for

his service -conne cted post-tra umatic stress disorder ; VA disability rating s highe r than 10 % f o r h i s s e r v i c e - c o n n e c t e d

o r g an i c r e s i d

u a l s o f f r o z e nf e e t ; an d a V A r a t i n g o f

t o t a l d isa bil ity based on individual unemploy ability

. Record at 4-5. The appellant filed a brief re questing a re mand on the g ro un ds that the Se c re tary ha d f a ile d, int e r a lia , to c omp ly wi th c e rt a in s tatut or

y a me ndme nts enac ted in the Vete rans Claims Assistance A ct of 2000, Pub. L

. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000) (VCAA) , specific ally the duty to give notice to the appe llant of requir ed information and evidenc e under

38 U.S.C. § 5103 and the duty to a ssist under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A. The rea fter, the Secre tary filed a motion for summar y aff irmance , arguing (1) that, althoug h the VCAA wa s enac ted subsequent to the VA r eg ional office (RO) de cision that was appe al ed t o t h e Board, the appellant was not pre

judiced by

the VARO' s not consideringhis c laim in light of the VCAA and (2) that the B oa rd pr op e rl y c on sid e re d th e a

pp e lla nt' s c la ims in a c c or da

nc e wi th t he VC AAa me ndme nts

. The U.S. Court of Appe als fo r t he F eder al Circuit (F eder al Circuit) re cently decide d two ca s es of import reg ardingthe VCAA. In Dyme nt v. Principi , th e F e d e r a l C ir c u it h e ld tha t se c tio n 3(a ) is not re tr oa c tiv e ly a pp lic a ble to cl a ims pe nd ing be fo re thi s Cour t or the F e de ra l Cir c uit at the time of the enac tment of the VCAA. Dyme nt , 287 F.3d 1377, 1385 ( Fe d. Cir. 2002), mot. for en banc c onsideration fil ed (May 3, 2002). The F eder al Circuit rea soned: [T] he infere nce is ne arly inesca pable that section 3(a) of the VCAA, unlike section 4[, which expli citly provides for retroa ctivity ], wa s not int e nd e d to be g ive n re tr oa c tiv e e ff e c t. Ce rt a inl y

the re is n oth ingin the s t atutory

lang uag e or c ontext that would overc ome the pr e su mpt ion of no n- re tr oa c tiv ity se t for th by the Sup re me Court

[in Lan dg ra f v . U SI Fi lm Pr od

s. , 511 U.S. 244, 272-73 (1994)].2

Ib id ; cf

. ibi d . (stating : "We ther efor e dec line to adjudica t e [ the] claim in li g ht of the standar d set forth in section 3(a) . . . , which wa s not enac ted while [the] claim was under c onsideration by
. . . [V A] ." ( emphasis adde d)). In Bernklau v . Principi , th e F e de ra l Cir c uit c on c lud e d th a t Dy me nt "w as plainly corr ect" , beca

use the Supreme Court has " held re peate dly that fede ral legis l at ion is to be con st rued to avo id ret roac ti vi ty un les s we can di scern clear congres si on al in ten t fo rt h a t r e su lt ", Bernklau , __ F.3d. __, __, No. 00-7122, 2002 WL 1011295, at *7 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2002) (c iting Landgraf , 511 U.S. at 270); howeve r, the F eder al Circuit declined to " decide whether applying se c tio n 3(a) to proc e e din g s a lr e a dy c omm e nc e d at th e tim e of e na c tme nt o f t

he VC AAand

sti ll pen di ng befo re t he [ RO ] or t he [ Bo a r d ] w o ul d co ns ti tu te r etr oact iv e app li cat io n o f t he s tat ut e", Bernklau , __ F.3d at __, 2002 WL 1011295, at * 8 n
. 9 (n o t ing e x istence of "ne w re g ulations associate d with the VCAA [that] apply to 'a ny claim for ben ef

i t s rec eived by

[VA] on or af

ter November 9, 2000, the VCAA' s enac tment da te, as well as to a

ny claim filed bef

ore that date but not decide d by

[VA] as of that date.' 66 Fe d. Reg . 45,629 (Aug . 29, 2 0 0 1 )" ). I t ap pear s that neither opinion definitively

establishes the scope of t h e re t ro activity that is now proscribe d as to the application of the VCAA.
I n light of the above- mentioned Dy me nt and Bernklau opinions, t h e C ourt requir es supplemental brief

ing on the following questions and notes that it does n o t i n t end to g rant a ny e xten sio ns of

tim e in c on ne c tio n w iththat br ie fi ng : ( 1 ) D o e s s e c t i o n 3 ( a ) o f

t h e V C A A a

p p l y t o t h e c l a i m s i n v o l v e d

i n t h i s c a s e ? See Karnas v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 308, 313 ( 1991). (2) Do the revised V A adj u d i cation reg ulations, see 66 Fe d. Reg . 45,620, 45,630-32 (Aug . 2 9, 20 01 ) (t o be c od if ie d at 38 C.F .R. pt. 3) (" Duty to A ssi st" re g ulatio ns ), a

pp ly to t he c la ims involved in this case and, if so, under what authority

wer e those re g ulations promulgated? (3) I f neither VCAA section 3(a) nor the revised V A adjudication reg ulations apply to the c la ims inv olv e d in

thi s c a se , d id V A h a ve a

du ty to a ssi st o r t o n oti fy

in r e g a rd to t ho se c la ims ?
On c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is ORDERED that, not later tha n 30 day s after

the date of

this order, the Sec reta

ry file, and serve on the appe llant, a supplemental brie f addr essing the above questions. I t is further
ORDERED t hat, not later than 30 day s after service of the Sec reta

ry ' s supplemental brief

, the appellant f

ile, and ser

ve on the S ecr etar

y , a supplementa l brief in re ply . I ntere sted amici cur iae may file a br ief in the same period of time a ffor ded to the appe llant.
DA TE D: June 19 , 2 00 2 PER CU RI AM

.