Case: Frederick CEGUR, John W. Weaver, Johnny C. Collins, James M Schoonover, Timothy P. Macsay, Gary R. Greene, Robert L. Olson, Bernard J. Teusch, Kenneth W. Croner, Anton J. Bauer, III, Peter Androne, Charles E. Hall, Richard M. Barrett, Russell L. Sadler, Jr., Jack L. Wilson, and Jose M. Vazquez, Claimants-Appellees, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant
Abbreviation: Cegur v. Nicholson
Decision Date: 2006-11-13
Docket Number: Nos. 2006-7229, 2006-7233, 2006-7263 to 2006-7276
Citation: 208 F. App'x 872
Volume: 21
Reporter: West's Veterans Appeals Reporter
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Frederick CEGUR, John W. Weaver, Johnny C. Collins, James M Schoonover, Timothy P. Macsay, Gary R. Greene, Robert L. Olson, Bernard J. Teusch, Kenneth W. Croner, Anton J. Bauer, III, Peter Androne, Charles E. Hall, Richard M. Barrett, Russell L. Sadler, Jr., Jack L. Wilson, and Jose M. Vazquez, Claimants-Appellees, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: Before GAJARSA, DYK, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
Pages: 872–873

Head Matter:
Frederick CEGUR, John W. Weaver, Johnny C. Collins, James M Schoonover, Timothy P. Macsay, Gary R. Greene, Robert L. Olson, Bernard J. Teusch, Kenneth W. Croner, Anton J. Bauer, III, Peter Androne, Charles E. Hall, Richard M. Barrett, Russell L. Sadler, Jr., Jack L. Wilson, and Jose M. Vazquez, Claimants-Appellees, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.
Nos. 2006-7229, 2006-7233, 2006-7263 to 2006-7276.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Nov. 13, 2006.
Before GAJARSA, DYK, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
The captions of these appeals are condensed only for the purposes of this order. The individual caption of each of these appeals has not been revised.

Opinion:
ORDER
GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to vacate the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims' judgments in Cegur v. Nicholson, 05-1224, 2006 WL 829237 (Vet.App.2006), Weaver v. Nicholson, 04-2419, 2006 WL 1726512 (Vet.App.2006), Collins v. Nicholson, 05-0309, 2007 WL 715486 (Vet.App.2007), Schoonover v. Nicholson, 05-0526, 2007 WL 509732 (Vet.App.2007), Macsay v. Nicholson, 05-0787, 2007 WL 509667 (Vet.App.2007), Greene v. Nicholson, 05-0842, 2007 WL 602113 (Vet.App.2007), Olson v. Nicholson, 05-0910, 2006 WL 1726445 (Vet.App.2006), Teusch v. Nicholson, 05-1023, 2007 WL 602211 (Vet.App.2007), Croner v. Nicholson, 05-1147, 2006 WL 1522079 (Vet.App.2006), Bauer v. Nicholson, 05-1359, 2007 WL 509428 (Vet.App.2007), Androne v. Nicholson, 05-1534, 2006 WL 1167659 (Vet.App.2006), Hall v. Nicholson, 05-1693, 2006 WL 952611 (Vet.App.2006), Barrett v. Nicholson, 05-1706, 2006 WL 1522013 (Vet.App.2006), Sadler v. Nicholson, 05-1709, 2006 WL 954193 (Vet.App.2006), Wilson v. Nicholson, 05-1804, 2006 WL 954029 (Vet.App.2006), and Vazquez v. Nicholson, 05-1950, 2007 WL 602222 (Vet.App.2007), and remand these cases for further proceedings consistent with this court's decision in Smith v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1344 (Fed.Cir.2006).
In all of the above-captioned cases, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims relied on its decision in Smith v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 63 (2005), in concluding that the claimants were entitled to separate ratings for tinnitus in each ear. We reversed that decision, holding that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims should have deferred to the Secretary's interpretation of the regulation at issue, an interpretation that only one rating may be allowed for tinnitus in both ears. Smith, 451 F.3d 1344. Under these circumstances, the requested relief is appropriate.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motions to vacate and remand are granted.
(2) All parties shall bear their own costs.