Pasco K. Altovilla v. Eric K. Shinseki

25 Vet. App. 200, 2012 WL 2050414, 2012 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 1154
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
DecidedJune 7, 2012
Docket11-0696
StatusPublished

This text of 25 Vet. App. 200 (Pasco K. Altovilla v. Eric K. Shinseki) 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
Pasco K. Altovilla v. Eric K. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 200, 2012 WL 2050414, 2012 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 1154 (Cal. 2012).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

On February 28, 2011, Pasco K. Altovilla, who was then self represented, filed a Notice of Appeal from a February 23, 2011, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision. On March 13, 2012, the Court stayed proceedings to permit Mr. Altovilla to obtain counsel. On April 16, 2012, Mr. Altovilla’s current counsel filed an appearance and, on April 19, 2012, the Court lifted the stay of proceedings and submitted the appeal to a panel.

The following day, Mr. Altovilla, through his newly retained counsel, filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief, as he had previously submitted an informal brief while self represented. On May 21, 2012, prior to the Court acting on this motion, the parties filed a joint motion for partial remand.

The Court will now grant the joint motion for partial remand and dismiss Mr. Altovilla’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief as moot.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that Mr. Altovilla’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is DISMISSED as moot. It is further

ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion for partial remand is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that the February 23, 2011, Board decision is VACATED and the matter of entitlement to an effective date earlier than January 9, 2004, for the grant of service connection for left ear defective hearing is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the contents of the joint motion incorporated herein. Under Rule 41(b) of the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, this order is the mandate of the Court.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 Vet. App. 200, 2012 WL 2050414, 2012 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 1154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pasco-k-altovilla-v-eric-k-shinseki-cavc-2012.