Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2009/03/28/veterans-court-assigns-sanction-against-the-va-pousson-v-shinseki-no-07-3315/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:43:38+00:00

Document:
The Veterans Court has issued a sanction against the Secretary of VA, stating that this is “designed to encourage continued diligent compliance with the Court’s Rules in this case and future cases, and to provide a remedy for the unnecessary effort expended to address the Secretary’s lack of diligence,….
due and orderly administration of justice and in maintaining the authority and dignity of the court. . .'”quoting United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34 (1812) and Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 539 (1925)); Jones v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 596, 606 (1991); see also 18 U.S.C. § 401 and 38 U.S.C. § 7265.
Although the imposition of sanctions “must take care to determine that the conduct at issue actually abused the judicial process,” Jones v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. at 606, such action is not limited, as the Secretary argues, to circumstances involving bad faith. Rather, pursuant to statute alone, sanctions are permissible when there is 1) “misbehavior” before the Court “or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice,” or 2) “misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions” or 3) “disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.” 38 U.S.C. § 7265.3 Although bad faith and willfulness are elements of criminal contempt, such intentions are not required for civil contempt. United States v. Saccoccia, 342 F. Supp. 2d 25, 30 (D. R.I. 2004) (“Willfulness is an element of criminal contempt, but not civil contempt . . . . [I]n the case of civil contempt, specific intent to violate the order is not required.”)(citations omitted)), rev’d on other grounds, 433 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2005). Similarly, while bad faith may be a prerequisite to sanctions under a court’s inherent authority, see Roadway Express, 447 U.S.
interpretations of their sanctions statute. Cf. CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 128 S. Ct. 1951, 1956(2008) (construing sister statutes with common language, origin, and purpose the same).
As a sanction designed to encourage continued diligent compliance with the Court’s Rules in this case and future cases, and to provide a remedy for the unnecessary effort expended to address the Secretary’s lack of diligence, the Secretary will be directed to pay the reasonable attorney fees and costs associated with the adjudication of this matter, as approved by the Court. See NLRB v.
Blevins Popcorn Co., 659 F.2d 1173, 1184 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (noting that a civil contempt action “is a remedial sanction used to obtain compliance with a court order or to compensate for damage sustained as the result of noncompliance.”).
v. Ward, 643 F.3d 924, 931 (2nd Cir. 1981) (citations omitted); see also TMT N. Am., Inc. v. The Magic Touch GmbH, 57 F. Supp. 2d 586, 589 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
Before KASOLD, DAVIS, and SCHOELEN, Judges.
had not yet received the DOR or otherwise indicate that the underlying claims file might be missing.
The Clerk of the Court granted the first motion pursuant to the Court’s Rules. U.S. VET.APP.
2008. U.S. VET. APP. R. 26(b) and 45(g)(4). On that date, the Secretary notified the Court and Mr.
to be reconstructed. Unilateral Motion for Remand, Exhibits 4 and 2, respectively.
prepared and submitted for filing with the Court as required by the Court’s Rules. U.S. VET.APP. R.
although infrequent, is not an isolated event.
valuable service to the Court.
payable to Mr. Pousson for the delay in processing his appeal.
nonrepayable interim benefits and the imposition of an adverse inference against the Secretary.
submitted for filing what purports to be the ROA.
disputes as to content of the record).
for all courts of the United States).
examine the full scope of our inherent or statutory authority.
extension, and stated again as the basis for the request that his counsel had not obtained the file.
submitted without reconstruction of the claims file.
since October 2007, with “internal charges” of the file in December 2007 and March 2008.
exercising the diligence and energetic effort called for, there is no excuse for not doing so earlier.
abiding by the pertinent rules.”)(citing In re Violation of Rule 28(c), 388 F.3d 1383, 1385 (Fed. Cir.
requirements is the direct and unnecessary cause for almost a year’s delay in the processing of Mr.
matter. As a sanction designed to encourage continued diligent compliance with the Court’s Rules in this case and future cases, and to provide a remedy for the unnecessary effort expended to address the Secretary’s lack of diligence, the Secretary will be directed to pay the reasonable attorney fees and costs associated with the adjudication of this matter, as approved by the Court. See NLRB v.
also Pub. L. No. 102-572, § 506 (1992) (amending EAJA to clarify that it applies to the Court).
counsel. The DOR has been compiled and submitted for filing, which permits the appeal to proceed.
in the future. See Blevins Popcorn Co., supra.
(1990) (adopting Article III courts case or controversy jurisdictional restraints).
Amici have presented briefs both in support of and against interim benefits, however, Mr.
not further consider or discuss our possible authority to impose such a sanction.
DATED: March 26, 2009 PER CURIAM.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 401
 § 7265
 v. 
 § 7265
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

v. 
 v. 
 v.

 § 506