Case: Mauro F. RUIZ, Claimant-Appellee, v. James B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant
Abbreviation: Ruiz v. Peake
Decision Date: 2008-02-11
Docket Number: No. 2007-7126
Citation: 269 F. App'x 958
Volume: 22
Reporter: West's Veterans Appeals Reporter
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Mauro F. RUIZ, Claimant-Appellee, v. James B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: Before RADER, Circuit Judge, CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and BRYSON, Circuit Judge.
Pages: 958–959

Head Matter:
Mauro F. RUIZ, Claimant-Appellee, v. James B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 2007-7126.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Feb. 11, 2008.
Before RADER, Circuit Judge, CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs responds to the court's November 19, 2007 order and requests that the court summarily affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Ruiz v. Nicholson, 04-0886, 2006 WL 4029586 (Oct. 24, 2006). Mauro F. Ruiz has not responded.
The Secretary appealed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, challenging that court's determination that a 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) notification error was not nonprejudicial 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. In this case, it is not clear whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims properly placed the burden of proving that the notice error was nonprejudicial on the Secretary. Nevertheless, the court agrees that because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims did not find that the error was nonprejudicial and remanded to the Board for further proceedings, 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.