Bradford v. Peake
This text of 272 F. App'x 884 (Bradford v. Peake) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to respond to the court’s November 20, 2007 order and requests that the court summarily affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) in Bradford v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 200 (2006). Darryl D. Bradford has not responded.
This case was stayed pending the court’s disposition in Sanders v. Nicholson, 487 F.3d 881 (Fed.Cir.2007) and its companion case Simmons v. Nicholson, 487 F.3d 892 (Fed.Cir.2007). In Sanders, this court held that any notification error should be presumed prejudicial and the Secretary has the burden of rebutting this presumption. Id. at 891.
The Secretary concedes that the only issue raised in this appeal is identical to the issue decided in Sanders and Simmons. Under these circumstances, summary affirmance is appropriate.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The judgment of the CAVC is summarily affirmed. The case is remanded for further proceedings.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
272 F. App'x 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradford-v-peake-cafc-2008.