Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2009/04/02/evidence-not-considered-kelly-v-nicholson-no-05-7116-fedcir/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:24:50+00:00

Document:
Items I considered of interest in this case are: prevaling party, breach duty to assist, substantial justification, 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), 38 U.S.C. § 3007(b), Benefit of the doubt.
particularly 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).
benefit of the doubt to the claimant.
This is the html version of the file http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/FEDERAL/JUDICIAL/fed/opinions/05opinions/05-7116.pdf.
Richard R. James, of Glen Allen, Virginia, argued for claimant-appellant. On the brief was Sandra E. Booth, of Columbus, Ohio.
Marla T. Conneely, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee.
With her on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, and Todd M. Hughes, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. Timinski, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Martin J. Sendek, Staff Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.
Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and RADER, Circuit Judges.
William J. Kelly appeals the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying his application for reimbursement of legal fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Kelly v. Principi, No. 99-191(E) (Ct. App. Vet. Cl. Oct. 28, 2004). We reverse and remand.
etiology. See Kelly v. Principi, No. 99-191 (Ct. App. Vet. Cl. Feb. 6, 2004) (providing a summary of medical evidence before the VA).
On remand, the RO obtained additional medical documentation. Kelly also underwent a brain and spinal cord VA examination in December 1997. The RO again concluded that olivopontocerebellar degeneration was an appropriate diagnosis and that it was a familial disorder with no known relationship to Agent Orange exposure.
condition was not one that is presumed to result from Agent Orange exposure. Id. at 9.
insufficient to confer it with jurisdiction over that claim. Kelly v. Gober, No. 99-191 (Ct.
App. Vet. Cl. Jan. 5, 2001).
jurisdiction over Kelly’s ataxia claim. Kelly v. Principi, No. 99-191 (Ct. App. Vet. Cl. Oct.
Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-103, § 603(a), 115 Stat.
this Court.” Kelly v. Principi, No. 99-191 (Ct. App. Vet. Cl. Feb. 28, 2002).
diagnosis rendered on July 13, 1989 and again on November 14, 1989.” Kelly v.
before readjudicating the case, and then must reach a conclusion on that matter.” Id.
determining that he was not a “prevailing party.” Kelly v. Principi, No. 99-191, at 2 (Ct.
Order”). Kelly appeals, and we exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a).
We review the Veterans Court’s interpretation of EAJA de novo. Vaughn v.
1306 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Brandenburg v. Principi, 371 F.3d 1362, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
2004); Bailey v. Principi, 351 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
expenses unless the government’s position was substantially justified. 28 U.S.C.
special circumstances make an award unjust.
benefits that they have earned.
Motorola, 336 F.3d at 1366.
only considered the OPCA diagnosis in denying Kelly’s service connection claim.
VCAA statutes defining the VA’s duties, particularly 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).
38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2000) (emphasis added).
336 F.3d at 1366; see also Johnson v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2005); Muhar v.
required to by statute), the appeal to the Veterans Court may not have been required.
As such, the remand was due to the agency’s error.
the Board (and RO, after any appropriate remand thereto) must consider that argument.
his OPCA claim in accordance with 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103(a) and 5103A and 38 C.F.R.
clearly an argument that his symptoms were attributable to ataxia.” EAJA Order at 6.
by making such trivial distinctions and masking its actions in artfully worded orders.
Here, the court erred by doing just that.
pursuing the EAJA action. Former Employees of Motorola, 336 F.3d at 1368 n.3.
Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001), and this court’s own precedent, Vaughn v.
departed from that law without justification, I must respectfully dissent.
law. At this time, the Veterans Court also noted that it lacked jurisdiction over Mr.
Veterans Judicial Review Act, which required a NOD for Veterans Court jurisdiction.
service connection without a NOD. After this statutory change brought a remand, Mr.
Kelly seeks attorney fees as a prevailing party.
prevailed in any sense, let alone on the merits of his cerebellar ataxia claim.
because the state legislature changed the law and thus rendered the claim moot. Id.
change in the legal relationship of the parties.” Id. at 605.
Vaughn’s claim involved an appeal from a denial of service connection benefits.
award of attorney fees as a “prevailing party” under EAJA.
Employees of Motorola Ceramic Products v. United States, 336 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed.
law, not based on any proof of agency error.
have made a mistake with respect to an argument not presented.
alternative other than that the law of Buckhannon and Vaughn govern this case.

References: § 5107
 § 3007
 § 5107
 § 2412
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 603
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 § 7292
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 § 5107
 § 5107
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.