Court Opinion

ID: 9502366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 18:50:05.173695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:53.730256
License: Public Domain

STEINBERG, Judge,
dissenting:
For the following reasons, I voted to grant the appellant’s March 5, 2003, motion for a panel decision: (1) I believe that the additional evidence (at least five affidavits are new) submitted by the appellant in his motion for a panel decision (Motion at 7-8, Attachments A-E) warrants the panel’s consideration and (2) in the pending case of Abbey v. Principi, No. 01-501, the Court issued an order directing the appellant there to file a memorandum “that explains why the prevailing market rate in this ease should not be $90 per hour”, Abbey v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 543, 544 (2002) (per curiam order), and I believe that a similar order should be issued in the instant case. Hence, I also vote to grant the appellant’s March 13, 2003, motion for a stay pending the resolution of Abbey, supra.