Case: David BISHOP, Claimant-Appellee, v. James B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant
Abbreviation: Bishop v. Peake
Decision Date: 2008-06-03
Docket Number: No. 2007-7287
Citation: 311 F. App'x 334
Volume: 23
Reporter: West's Veterans Appeals Reporter
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: David BISHOP, Claimant-Appellee, v. James B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: Before MAYER, SCHALL, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
Pages: 334–334

Head Matter:
David BISHOP, Claimant-Appellee, v. James B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 2007-7287.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
June 3, 2008.
Robert V. Chisholm, Chisholm Chisholm & Kilpatrick, Providence, RI, Zachary M. Stolz, Chisholm Chisholm & Kilpatrick, Washington, DC, for Claimanfi-Appellee.
Martin F. Hockey Jr., Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellant.
Before MAYER, SCHALL, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
The parties have not responded to the court's order indicating that the court would consider summarily affirming the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Brown v. Nicholson, 04-857, 2005 WL 1804790 (July 21, 2005).
The Secretary appealed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, challenging that court's determination that there was a 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) notification error, that such error was prejudicial, and that remand to the Board of Veterans Appeals was required. In Sanders v. Nicholson, 487 F.3d 881 (Fed.Cir.2007), this court held that any section 5103(a) error should be presumed prejudicial and the Secretary has the burden of rebutting this presumption. Id. at 891. Under these circumstances, summary affirmance is appropriate.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is summarily affirmed. The case is remanded.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
(3) All pending motions are moot.