Harding v. Shinseki

331 F. App'x 738
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedMarch 27, 2009
DocketNo. 2007-7317
StatusPublished

This text of 331 F. App'x 738 (Harding v. Shinseki) 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.

Bluebook
Harding v. Shinseki, 331 F. App'x 738 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Opinion

[739]*739ON MOTION

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and to remand for further proceedings.

Walter L. Harding filed a service connection claim for diabetes mellitus due to herbicide exposure. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied Harding’s herbicide claim. The Board determined that Harding was not entitled to the presumption of service connection due to herbicide exposure by interpreting a controlling regulation to exclude the presumption of service connection for veterans who served on ships off the coast of Vietnam but who never set foot within the land borders of Vietnam.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims reversed the Board’s herbicide determination, interpreting the regulation so that the presumption of service connection also applied to veterans who served on ships off the coast of Vietnam but did not set foot within Vietnam’s borders. The Secretary appealed to this court.

We recently issued our decision in Haas v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1168 (Fed.Cir.2008). Haas held, inter alia, that only veterans present on the landmass or inland waters of Vietnam were entitled to the presumption of service connection due to herbicide exposure. Because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in concluding that veterans who did not set foot within Vietnam’s borders were entitled to the presumption of service connection for herbicide exposure, we remand for further proceedings.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Haas v. Peake
525 F.3d 1168 (Federal Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
331 F. App'x 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harding-v-shinseki-cafc-2009.