Court Opinion

ID: 9502191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 18:48:14.554293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:37.930839
License: Public Domain

STEINBERG, Judge,
dissenting:
I do not support the Court’s acting on this motion for an initial full Court decision prior to obtaining a response from the Secretary on that motion, particularly on the appellant’s argument regarding the criteria for a finding of clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in a prior final VA *416adjudication. In that regard, I would require the Secretary to address the argument made by the appellant as to the “or” in the 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a) (1999) regulatory provision (between “reversed” and “amended”) and in the 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109A and 7111 statutory provisions (between “reversed” and “revised”), an argument that the Court has never addressed. In this connection, it is interesting that the new 20 C.F.R. Subpart 0 regulations (effective 2/12/99) on BVA-decision CUE use only “revision” (see, e.g., § 20.1400(b), 20.1404(a), (c), (d), 20.1406(a) (“revises”), (b)). 64 Fed.Reg. 2134, 2139 (1999).