Kessel v. Gober

Veterans Claims

Kessel v. Gober

14 Vet. App. 185, 2000 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 1054, 2000 WL 1725242

CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

DecidedNovember 20, 2000

Docket98-0772

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 Vet. App. 185 (Kessel v. Gober) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kessel v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 185, 2000 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 1054, 2000 WL 1725242 (Cal. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

On September 20, 1999, a majority of the Court, sitting en banc, issued an opinion in the instant case affirming the April 8, 1998, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) that denied the appellant’s claim for service connection for residuals of a head injury with syncope and possible brain lesion. Kessel v. West, 13 Vet.App. 9 (1999). The Court’s judgment was entered on October 13, 1999. The appellant appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit).

After submission of the appeal to the Federal Circuit, but before that court issued a decision, the appellant died. On August 14, 2000, the Federal Circuit issued an order dismissing the appeal and denying a motion for substitution of heirs in the pending appeal. Kessel v. Gober, No. 00-7011, 2000 WL 1145483 (Fed.Cir. Aug. 14, 2000).

This Court held in Landicho v. Brown that when a veteran dies during the pen-dency of the appeal, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the Board decision from which the appeal was taken and to dismiss the appeal. 7 Vet.App. 42, 54 (1994); see also Morton v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 174 (2000). Such action ensures that the Board decision and the underlying regional office (RO) decision(s) will have no preclu-sive effect in the adjudication of any accrued-benefits claims derived from the veteran’s entitlements. It also nullifies the previous merits adjudication by the RO because that decision was subsumed in the Board decision. See Yoma v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 298 (1995) (relying on Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 69, 80 (1995)); see also Hudgins v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 365, 368 (1995) (per curiam order).

*186 Based upon the foregoing, sua sponte, it is

ORDERED that the Court’s judgment in the instant ease is recalled and its September 20, 1999, opinion is withdrawn. It is further

ORDERED that the April 8, 1998, decision of the Board is VACATED. It is further

ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

On September 20, 1999, a majority of the Court, sitting en banc, issued an opinion in the instant case affirming the April 8, 1998, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) that denied the appellant’s claim for service connection for residuals of a head injury with syncope and possible brain lesion. Kessel v. West, 13 Vet.App. 9 (1999). The Court’s judgment was entered on October 13, 1999. The appellant appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit).

After submission of the appeal to the Federal Circuit, but before that court issued a decision, the appellant died. On August 14, 2000, the Federal Circuit issued an order dismissing the appeal and denying a motion for substitution of heirs in the pending appeal. Kessel v. Gober, No. 00-7011, 2000 WL 1145483 (Fed.Cir. Aug. 14, 2000).

This Court held in Landicho v. Brown that when a veteran dies during the pen-dency of the appeal, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the Board decision from which the appeal was taken and to dismiss the appeal. 7 Vet.App. 42, 54 (1994); see also Morton v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 174 (2000). Such action ensures that the Board decision and the underlying regional office (RO) decision(s) will have no preclu-sive effect in the adjudication of any accrued-benefits claims derived from the veteran’s entitlements. It also nullifies the previous merits adjudication by the RO because that decision was subsumed in the Board decision. See Yoma v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 298 (1995) (relying on Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 69, 80 (1995)); see also Hudgins v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 365, 368 (1995) (per curiam order).

*186 Based upon the foregoing, sua sponte, it is

ORDERED that the Court’s judgment in the instant ease is recalled and its September 20, 1999, opinion is withdrawn. It is further

ORDERED that the April 8, 1998, decision of the Board is VACATED. It is further

ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Vet. App. 185, 2000 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 1054, 2000 WL 1725242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kessel-v-gober-cavc-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack