Case Name: William F. ALLEN, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-10-16
Citations: 268 F.3d 1340
Docket Number: No. 99-7199
Parties: William F. ALLEN, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MAYER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, MICHEL, LOURIE, CLEVENGER, RADER, SCHALL, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 268
Pages: 1340–1342

Head Matter:
William F. ALLEN, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 99-7199.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
DECIDED: Oct. 16, 2001.
Ronald L. Smith, Disabled American Veterans, of Washington, DC, filed a response for claimant-appellant. With him on the brief was Stephen L. Purcell.
Michael S. Dufault, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc for respondent-appellee. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Schiffer, Acting Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, and Robert E. Kirschman, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Richard J. Hipolit, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Michael J. Timinski, Attorney, Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.
Before MAYER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, MICHEL, LOURIE, CLEVENGER, RADER, SCHALL, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge CLEVENGER, in which Circuit Judges LOURIE, RADER, GAJARSA, and DYK join.
ORDER
This case was argued before a panel of the court on November 3, 2000, and the court's decision and judgment were issued on February 2, 2001. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc and William F. Allen, by invitation of the court, filed a response.
The petition for rehearing was referred to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc and response were referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active service. A poll of the judges in regular active service was conducted to determine whether the appeal should be reheard en banc. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition for panel rehearing is denied.
(2) The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
(3) The mandate of the court will issue on October 23, 2001.