Court Opinion

ID: 9805804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 18:18:00.411654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:48:27.115294
License: Public Domain

KASOLD, Chief Judge,
concurring:
I agree with today’s decision, but write separately to note that the heart of the issue decided by the Court arises from the holding in Bowling v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 1,1 0 (2001), that the Board is prohibited from awarding extraschedular TDIU in the first instance. The Bowling holding was rendered with little analysis of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b) or its interplay with the statutory scheme for adjudicating claims, which requires decisions of an agency of original jurisdiction to be appealed to the Board and final decisions to be rendered by the Board, see 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104 and 7105. Frankly, Bowling appears to be wrongly decided. I believe the en banc court should have taken this case for review and overturned Bowling, see Bethea v. Derwinsky 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 (1992) (panel decisions constitute binding precedent unless overturned by, inter alia, the full Court or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the. Federal Circuit), and thereby re-estab*240lished the authority of the Board to award extraschedular TDIU in the first instance.