UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O

. 01-0575

B UR DE TT H US TON , 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 I VERS, Chief Judge , and STEI NB ERG and KASOL D, Judges

. O R D E R
On Marc h 27, 2001, the appellant, veter an B urdett Huston, filed pro se a Notice of Appe al from a F ebrua

ry 21, 2001, Boa

rd of Ve tera

ns' Appea ls (B o ar d or B VA) de cision that denied a n eff ective da te ea rlier than June 7, 1991, for his De partment o f Ve t erans Affa irs (VA) service

connec ted bilatera l hear ing loss; that dec ision also addre ssed t he is sue whe ther a May 15, 1981, VA reg ional office (RO) de cision denying se rvice connec tion for that conditi on contained c lear and unmistakable er

ror ( CUE). Recor d (R.) at 1-3. O n May 25, 2001, counsel e ntere d an appe ara nce on behalf of the a ppellant. There afte r, the parties filed briefs. On J uly 11, 2003, this Court i ssued an opinion, vaca

ting the B oard de cision in this case and r emanding matters for further development and re adjudication. Huston v. Principi , 17 Vet.App. 195, 202- 06 (2003). S pecif ically , as to the appellant' s claim for a

n ear lier ef

fec tive d at e (EED) base d on a dire ct cha lleng e to a June 1999 VARO decision (direc t-appe al EED cla im), the Court conclude d that the B oard ha d err ed by failing to d isc uss th e no ti ce p ro vis ion s o f 3 8 U .S. C. § 51 03 (a ), a s ame nd e d b y the Ve te ra

ns Cla ims Assistance A ct of 2000 (V CAA), Pub. L . No. 106-475, § 3(a) , 114 Stat. 2096, 2096-97, and that the
rec ord on appe al (ROA) contained no spe cific notice to the appella n t t h at m et the standa rd established by amende d section 5103(a ) and 38 C.F .R. § 3.159(b) (2002)

. Huston , 17 Vet.App. at 20 2- 03

. T h e C o u rt o r d e r e d t h a t c l a i m r e m an d e d t o t h e B o ar d i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n c o mp l i an c e wi th those notice provisions. The Court a lso or dere d rema nded to the Boa

rd the appellant' s claim for a n EED base d on CUE in a May 1981 RO decision (CUE c laim). Id. at 203-06.
The Sec reta

ry appea led t o the U.S

. Court of Appeals for the Fe dera l Circuit (Fe dera l Circuit),
an d t h e F ed er al C i rc u i t

v ac at ed t h i s C o u rt 's o p i n i o nan d re m an d edt h e m at t er

fo r f u rt h er p ro ce ed i n gs consistent with its opini on in Conway v. Principi , 353 F.3d 1369 ( Fe d. Cir. 2004), which he ld that this Court i s require d to "' take due acc ount of the rule of prejudicia l e rror ' in all case s addre ssing the
no ti ce req ui rem ent s i n s ect io n 5 10 3(a) ." Id. at 1375. On June 28, 2004, the Fe dera l Circuit issued its ma nd a te , a nd the c a se is n owba c k b e fo re thi s Co ur t.
On J uly 9, 2004, the Secre tary filed a motion to stay

proce eding s in the instant case pe nding final dispositi on in this C o u rt of McCutche on v. Principi , No. 01-1027, a nd Conway v. Principi ,2

No. 01-0107. The rea fter, the appellant f iled an o p position t o the motion for a stay . On Se pte mbe r 1 4, 20 04 , th is C ourt iss ue d an op ini on , int e r a lia , va c a tin g the B oa rd de c isi on in t

his c a se as t o the C UE claim and remanding that matter for rea djudication. Huston v. Principi , __ Vet.App.

__, No. 575, 2004 WL 2047352 (Sept. 14, 2004). Wit h respe ct to c onsideration of the dire ct-a ppeal EE D c la im, the Court se ve re d the a pp e a l as to tha t cla im, g ra nte d in par

t the Se c re tary ' s mo tio n to stay proce eding s, and deferr ed consideration of that claim pending further orde r of the Court. Ib id

. A s to Mc C u tcheon , the Court notes that on September 15, 2004, the Court issued an orde r te rm inating the a

pp e a l ba se d o n a

Se pte mbe r 1 3, 20 04 , jo int mot ion fi le d b y the pa rt ie s th e re to terminate the appea l (in light of a settlement ag ree ment). The Court a lso note s that, by an August 3, 2004, single -judg e orde r, this Court in Conway , on rema nd from the F eder al Ci rc u i t , v acated the B oa rd de c isi on the re on a pp e a l and re mand e d th e matte r, and that on the same date a

pa ne l of thi s Court denied a motion for a panel de cision.

I n light of the Fe dera l Circuit's re mand her e and in the interest of r ece iving f ully develope d arguments, the Court is in need of supplemental brie fing from the pa rties re g ardingthe direc t-appe al EE D c la im. Spe c if

ic a lly , th e Court

re qu ir e s su

pp le me nta l br ie fi ngon

the fo llo wi ngqu e sti on s: 1. Do the notice pr ovisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5 1 0 3 (a) apply to the EED issue raised in a

n appea l to the Boa

rd fr om the initial award of servic e connec tion – i.e., whe re t he s ervi ce-co nn ect io n cl aim has alr eady been "sub st ant iat e[ d] "?
2. As sumin g , argue nd o, that the se c tio n 51 03 (a ) no tic e pr ov isi on s a pp ly to the appe llant's EE D claim, has VA complied with those provisions? I f not, was the appellant pr ejudiced by

VA noncomplianc e in this case, see 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(2) (direc ting the Court to " take due acc ount of the rule of prejudicia l error ") , and which party car ries the bur den re g ardingprejudicia l error ?
On c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is
ORDERED that, not later than 21 day s afte r the date of this order , the appellant file with the Court, and serve on the Secr etar y (and a ny amicus cur iae who ha s filed a suppleme ntal b rief) , a supplemental b ri ef a ddressing(1) the a ction that the Court should take in light of the Fe dera l Circuit's r emand a

nd (2) the spe cific que stions presented in the pr ece ding pa rag raph. It is further
ORDE RED tha

t any int e re ste d amic us c ur ia e may fi le a su pp le me nta l br ie f w ith in t

he tim e a f f o r d e d t o t h e a p p e l l an tan d , i f

s o , s h a l l s e r

v e t h a t p l e a d i n g o nt h e a

p p e l l a n tan d t h e S e c r e t ar

y
. It is further ORDERED that, not later tha n 14 day s after

service of the appellant' s supplemental brief , the Secre tary file, and se rve on the appellant and any amicus cur iae who ha s filed a suppleme ntal brief, a supplementa l response. It is further3

ORDERED th a

t, not later than 14 da

y s after service of the Sec reta

ry ' s supplemental re sponse, the a pp e lla nt a nd any a mic us c ur ia e wh o ha s fi le d a su pp le me nta l br ie f m ay

fi le a su pp le me nta l r e ply
an d , i f s o , s h a l l s e r

v e t h e r e p l y o ne a c h o t h e r an d o nt h e S e c r e t ar

y. Upon completion of brie fing , the Court anticipates that it will schedule oral a rg ument.

DA TE D: Se pte mbe r 2 7, 20 04 PER CU RI AM

.