Court Opinion

ID: 3215871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-22 15:02:11.576338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:52.431759
License: Public Domain

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

   PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA,
              Petitioner

                                v.

    SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
                Respondent
          ______________________

                       2015-7080
                 ______________________

 Petition for review pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Section 502.

    -------------------------------------------------------------

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS, VETERANS
OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES,
              Petitioners

                                v.

    SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
                Respondent
          ______________________

                       2015-7081
                 ______________________

 Petition for review pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Section 502.
2                     PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA   v. VA

                  ______________________

                  Decided: June 22, 2016
                  ______________________

    LINDA E. BLAUHUT, Paralyzed Veterans of America,
Washington, DC, argued for petitioner in 2015-7080. Also
represented by JENNIFER ANN ZAJAC.

    DORIS HINES, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett
& Dunner, LLP, argued for petitioners in 2015-7081. Also
represented by      LAUREN J. DREYER; BENJAMIN
SCHLESINGER, Atlanta, GA.

    MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent in 2015-
7080. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E.
KIRSCHMAN, JR.; DAVID J. BARRANS, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN,
Office of General Counsel, United States Department of
Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

    MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent in 2015-
7081. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E.
KIRSCHMAN, JR.; DAVID J. BARRANS, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN,
Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Af-
fairs, Washington, DC.

    THOMAS JOHN KNIFFEN, I, Law Office of Thomas J.
Kniffen, New York, NY, for amicus curiae New York State
Bar Association in 2015-7081. Also represented by
CHRISTINE KHALILI-BORNA CLEMENS, Finkelstein & Part-
ners, LLP, Newburgh, NY.
                ______________________

    Before NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA    v. VA                     3

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
    The Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Disabled
Veterans of America (collectively, Petitioners) challenge
the validity of regulations in 38 C.F.R. parts 3, 19, and 20,
requiring all claims and administrative appeals to origi-
nate on standard VA forms. See generally Standard
Claims and Appeals Forms, 79 Fed. Reg. 67660 (Dep’t of
Veterans Affairs Sept. 25, 2014).
    In related petitions, 1 this question was heard and de-
cided by a panel of this court. See Veterans Justice Grp.,
LLC v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 818 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir.
2016). We are bound by the decision of the prior panel,
and similarly deny the requested relief.
                         DENIED
    No costs.

    1    Veterans Justice Grp., LLC v. Sec’y of Veterans Af-
fairs (2015-7021), Nat’l Org. of Veterans Advocates Inc., v.
Sec’y of Veterans Affairs (2015-7025); and Am. Legion v.
Sec’y of Veterans Affairs (2015-7061). The Petitioners also
challenge the regulations to the extent that they foreclose
equitable tolling. This challenge is moot given the gov-
ernment’s clarification at oral argument that the regula-
tions do not foreclose equitable tolling. The Petitioners’
challenge based on the statutory notice requirements
under 38 U.S.C. § 5103 is also moot because the govern-
ment does not contend that notice on standard VA forms
satisfies its statutory notice requirements in all cases.
For the same reasons, we do not decide the Petitioners’
request for a ruling that Social Security regulations under
38 C.F.R. § 3.153 remain valid or that the VA be preclud-
ed from contacting represented veterans without involv-
ing their representatives.