Kilpatrick v. West

Veterans Claims

Kilpatrick v. West

13 Vet. App. 403, 2000 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 248, 2000 WL 294830

CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

DecidedMarch 21, 2000

Docket98-2247

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 13 Vet. App. 403 (Kilpatrick v. West) 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

Kilpatrick v. West, 13 Vet. App. 403, 2000 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 248, 2000 WL 294830 (Cal. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

The appellant appeals through counsel an August 24, 1998, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision that denied Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) financial assistance in the purchase of special adaptive housing, an automobile, and adaptive equipment, and a special home-adaptation grant. Record (R.) at 3. On May 11, 1999, the appellant filed a brief. On October 15, 1999, the Secretary filed a brief. In his brief, the Secretary does not address the appellant’s primary arguments, but the Secretary also asserts that “[h]e specifically does not concede any issue ... which [he] did not address, and reserves the right to address same if the Court finds it necessary or advisable.” Brief (Br.) at 7. The Court does.

Hence, we will order the Secretary to file a supplemental brief in this case addressing all of the appellant’s arguments that the Secretary has not yet addressed and as to which he does not “concede” the appellant’s position, including those identified in the section of the Secretary’s brief captioned, “2. Appellant’s Newly-Raised Arguments” (Br. at 4). The Secretary’s supplemental brief should include a discussion of the appellant’s arguments concerning the validity of VA Gen. Coun. Prec. 24-97 (July 3, 1997), both substantively and in terms of the process by which it was issued by VA, as well as whether it applies to this case and whether any deference is owed to that precedential opinion, see Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). Finally, the Secretary should address the application of Maggitt v. West, 202 F.3d 1370 (Fed.Cir.2000), and Stuckey v. West, 13 Vet.App. 163 (1999), to the Secretary’s argument that the Court should not address the arguments raised by the appellant to the Court but not to the Board in this case.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that, not later than 30 days after the date of this order, the Secretary file, and serve on the appellant, a supplemental brief in accordance with this order and that addresses those arguments raised *404-412 in the appellant’s brief that the Secretary-does not concede. It is further

ORDERED that, not later than 20 days after service of the Secretary’s supplemental brief, the appellant may file a supplemental brief in response.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

The appellant appeals through counsel an August 24, 1998, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision that denied Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) financial assistance in the purchase of special adaptive housing, an automobile, and adaptive equipment, and a special home-adaptation grant. Record (R.) at 3. On May 11, 1999, the appellant filed a brief. On October 15, 1999, the Secretary filed a brief. In his brief, the Secretary does not address the appellant’s primary arguments, but the Secretary also asserts that “[h]e specifically does not concede any issue ... which [he] did not address, and reserves the right to address same if the Court finds it necessary or advisable.” Brief (Br.) at 7. The Court does.

Hence, we will order the Secretary to file a supplemental brief in this case addressing all of the appellant’s arguments that the Secretary has not yet addressed and as to which he does not “concede” the appellant’s position, including those identified in the section of the Secretary’s brief captioned, “2. Appellant’s Newly-Raised Arguments” (Br. at 4). The Secretary’s supplemental brief should include a discussion of the appellant’s arguments concerning the validity of VA Gen. Coun. Prec. 24-97 (July 3, 1997), both substantively and in terms of the process by which it was issued by VA, as well as whether it applies to this case and whether any deference is owed to that precedential opinion, see Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). Finally, the Secretary should address the application of Maggitt v. West, 202 F.3d 1370 (Fed.Cir.2000), and Stuckey v. West, 13 Vet.App. 163 (1999), to the Secretary’s argument that the Court should not address the arguments raised by the appellant to the Court but not to the Board in this case.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that, not later than 30 days after the date of this order, the Secretary file, and serve on the appellant, a supplemental brief in accordance with this order and that addresses those arguments raised *404-412 in the appellant’s brief that the Secretary-does not concede. It is further

ORDERED that, not later than 20 days after service of the Secretary’s supplemental brief, the appellant may file a supplemental brief in response.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Vet. App. 403, 2000 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 248, 2000 WL 294830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kilpatrick-v-west-cavc-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack