Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2009/03/08/veterans-right-to-stop-adjudication/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:58:25+00:00

Document:
“where, as here, the claimant expressly indicates an intent that adjudication of certain specific claims not proceed at a certain point in time, neither the RO nor BVA has authority to adjudicate those specific claims, absent a subsequent request or authorization from the claimant or his or her representative.
see also Rancher v. Nicholson, No. 02-1142 and the dissent in Donovan v. Gober, No. 96-196 (Decided September 29, 1997).
Gershon M. Ratner was on the pleadings for appellant Hamilton.
Alvin D. Wax was on the pleadings for appellant Powell.
Edward A. Contreras, pro se.
Counsel, were on the pleadings for appellee.
IVERS, and STEINBERG, Associate Judges.
and FARLEY, Associate Judges, filed dissenting opinions.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Strott v.
its decision in one of its earliest cases, Whitt v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App.
Pub. L. No. 100-687 ù 402, 102 Stat. 4105, 4122 (1988) (found at 38 U.S.C.
some who believe it was correct as of the state of the law then existing.
subsequent putative NODs in Strott and Whitt.
Court’s August 4, 1992, opinion and to dismiss the appeal in Hamilton v.
AOJ] and a desire to contest the result”. 38 C.F.R. ù 20.201 (1992).
on November 18, 1988. See 38 C.F.R. ù 19.118 (1987).
prerequisite to this Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C.
A. ùù 7252, 7261, 7266 (West 1991). See Prenzler v. Derwinski, 928 F.
functioning with a manageable number of cases. See, e.g., 134 Cong.
Rec. S16650 (daily ed. Oct. 18, 1988) (statement of Sen. Cranston).
that it filed an NOD on or after November 18, 1988.
931 F.2d 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Strott, 1 Vet.App. at 116-17.
Court’s jurisdiction. Whitt, 1 Vet.App. at 42.
appeal of a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board). Mr.
a VA regional office (RO), adjudicative decision on September 26, 1985.
December 1985 and issued a Statement of the Case (SOC) on June 2, 1986.
holding that there was no valid NOD filed on or after November 18, 1988.
valid NOD as to such decision. Ibid.
constituting a jurisdictionally valid NOD. Strott, 964 F.2d at 1127.
other representative, as described in 38 C.F.R. ù 19.128 [now ù 20.
20.302(a)]. The [RO] then prepares [an SOC], as described in 38 C.F.
thus obtain jurisdiction before the [Court of Veterans Appeals]?
any written disagreement with that decision is not a valid NOD, 38 U.
vacate this Court’s decision in the Whitt appeal. Whitt v. Derwinski, No.
appeal to this Court “with instructions to dismiss Whitt’s appeal.” Id.
22, 1992. Whitt v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 258 (1992) (single-judge order).
lack of jurisdiction. King, 3 Vet.App. 242 (1992) (per curiam order). Mr.
subsequent to a VA Form 1-9 hearing.” King, 3 Vet.App. at 242.
appeared at a “VA Form 1-9 hearing”. Ibid.
and the parameters of the statutory provisions.
the original “analysis and holding” of this Court’s opinion in Whitt.
the two Federal Circuit actions.
logical basis for restricting Strott to its precise facts.
sequence of a 1-9 Appeal, a hearing, and subsequent RO adjudication.
Mr. Whitt in a 1-9 Appeal.
the claimant testified under oath at a personal hearing before the RO.
disagreement with that decision. R. at 89.
requested (and may even have been held) before the 1-9 Appeal was filed.
notwithstanding that there had not been a post-1-9-Appeal hearing.
not avail itself of that opportunity.
appellate review”. 38 U.S.C.A. ù 7105(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. ù 20.
the intent to appeal to the BVA. 38 U.S.C.A. ù 7105(a), (b) (West 1991).
than one NOD to obtain BVA review of the denial of a particular claim.
definition of an NOD now in 38 C.F.R. ù 20.201 (1992) (formerly in ù 19.
1992). This strongly suggests that the language of ù 19.118 (now ù 20.
latter term is used in the proposed, pending VA regulations. See 38 C.F.R.
ù 20.3(f) (1992) (a “claim” is an “application” for VA benefits); 57 Fed.
expressing disagreement with an AOJ adjudication — and not its effects.
provision — here section 4005 when VJRA ù 402 was enacted in 1988. Cf.
entitlement to benefits for total disability based on subjective factors).
pending VA regulations published on February 3, 1992. See 57 Fed. Reg.
sought in a claim that had been appealed to BVA).
development or review action as it deems proper” prior to issuing an SOC.
rise to another NOD, since no 1-9 Appeal would yet have been filed.
been requested had been awarded. See Rowell, supra.
. 38 U.S.C.A. ùù 5101(a), 5102 (West 1991); see also Tucker v.
further by providing a definition for “issue” and subissue. See 57 Fed.
quoted in part I.E.4, supra).
Court under VJRA ù 402 as to such a claim.
preliminary order and does not constitute a final Board decision”).
RO prior to the pre-remand appeal to the BVA.
administrative appellate process has begun.
Second, we overrule this Court’s multiple-NOD holding in Whitt, 1 Vet.
filed after an NOD has already been filed as to that claim.
timely filed, and which thus was already an appealed claim.
the holdings made today and takes note of two lines of Federal authority.
One holds that a jurisdictional holding cannot be made prospective only.
Manville [Corp. v. United States], 855 F.2d [1556,] 1565 [(Fed. Cir.
apply this judgment only prospectively.
The other line of cases derives from Chicot County Drainage Dist. v.
rule preventing collateral attack on subject matter jurisdiction.
Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites, 456 U.S. 694, 702 n.
were privileged to remain quiet and raise it in a subsequent suit.
Sac, [94 U.S. 351 (1876)].
Chicot County, 308 U.S. at 378 (emphasis added).
the statute and of its previous application, demand examination.
principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified.
Id. at 374 (emphasis added).
absent extraordinary good cause to do so.
RO denied the claim. R. at 49. In June 1986, the veteran filed an NOD.
testified under oath before the RO in September 1986. R. at 63.
disagreement with the RO decision and the SSOC. R. at 102.
claim. R. at 127. On March 6, 1989, the RO issued an SSOC. R. at 128.
matter to the Board for readjudication. Hamilton v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App.
at 1025; Skinner, 1 Vet. App. at 3; discussion in part I.G., above.
retroactively as to cases not pending before the Court.
his right knee, his back had been injured due to VA negligence. R. at 54.
adjudicate the not-yet-adjudicated section 1151 left-knee and back claims.
and the [BVA] will provide you with a copy of its decision.
returned to the BVA. R. at 36.
the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order.” R. at 16.
an NOD to the initial denial of those claims.
service connection for lung cancer, tuberculosis (TB), and “nerves”. R.
premature aging, as well as for lung cancer and HD with anemia. R. at 262.
osteoporosis, or premature aging. R. at 274-80.
filed another 1-9 Appeal, referring specifically only to lung cancer. R.
adjudication to the issues of service connection for lung cancer and HD.
See R. at 245-47. Although our decisions in Myers v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.
specifically mention osteomyelitis, osteoporosis, or premature aging.
premature aging to the veteran’s radiation exposure.
evidence is received within one year after the date of such notification.
date of receipt of the informal claim.
38 C.F.R. ù 3.155(a) (1992).
In Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 129, 137 (1992), and Servello v.
. . . .” Servello, 3 Vet.App. at 200.
send him the formal application forms. See Smith v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App.
1989 adjudication of those claims.
contest the denial. See 38 U.S.C.A. ù 7105(a), (b); 38 C.F.R. ù 20.201.
aging claims, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction over the appeal.
its Rules of Practice and Procedure.
APPEAL DISMISSED as to Hamilton.
APPEAL DISMISSED in part as to Contreras and as to Powell.
Circuit has left unresolved how much of Whitt remains viable.
invalidating subsequent putative NOD’s in Strott and Whitt.
no vacuum needs to be filled.
quoting with approval from Prenzler v. Derwinski, 928 F.2d 392, 394 (Fed.
could not provide grounds for a jurisdiction-creating NOD.
of a VA Form 1-9 is an adjudication rendered during appellate status.
1. The NOD is filed on or after November 18, 1988.
before the filing of an appeal to the BVA.
the AOJ may on occasion grant the claim.
a VA Form 1-9 which perfects the appeal.
the NODs were not timely.
with that decision is not a valid NOD . . . ” Strott, 964 F.2d at 1128.
there could be multiple NODs arising from multiple AOJ adjudications.
then it would be a jurisdiction-creating NOD.” Id. at 1127.
Whitt v. Derwinski, No. 92-7017, order at 2 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 1992).
multiple adjudications by the AOJ.
the new and emergent body of veterans law.
that the VA adjudicates and readjudicates claims daily at the AOJ level.
and holding of Whitt, I dissent.
how long does it take to get an answer once it goes to the amc after the bva grants it to be reopened?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.