Case Name: KAI S. WONG, Claimant-Appellee, v. James B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-05
Citations: 273 F. App'x 864
Docket Number: No. 2005-7126
Parties: KAI S. WONG, Claimant-Appellee, v. James B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 273
Pages: 864–864

Head Matter:
KAI S. WONG, Claimant-Appellee, v. James B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 2005-7126.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
March 5, 2008.
Before PROST, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Kai S. Wong and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs each respond to the court's December 5, 2007 order and request that the court summarily affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Wong v. Principi, 04-254, 2004 WL 3111065 (Dec. 17, 2004).
The Board of Veterans' Appeals denied a rating in excess of 10% for service-connected major depressive disorder and denied a rating of total disability based on individual unemployability. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated the Board's decision and remanded the case to the Board, and the Secretary appealed.
This case was stayed pending the court's disposition in Roan v. Principi, 2004-7093, which was stayed pending the court's disposition in Sanders v. Nicholson, 487 F.3d 881 (Fed.Cir.2007), and its companion case Simmons v. Nicholson, 487 F.3d 892 (Fed. Cir.2007). In Sanders, this court held that any 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) error should be presumed prejudicial and the Secretary has the burden of rebutting this presumption. Id. at 891.
The court agrees that summary affirmance of the judgment vacating and remanding to the Board is appropriate in light of our decisions in Simmons and Sanders.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The stay of proceedings is lifted.
(2) The judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is summarily affirmed. The case is remanded.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.