Robin E. Helmer v. Anthony J. Principi ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
    NO . 02-720
    ROBIN E. HELMER ,                                             APPELLANT ,
    V.
    ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,
    SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,                                APPELLEE.
    Before KRAMER, Chief Judge, and FARLEY and STEINBERG, Judges.
    ORDER
    On November 13, 2003, the Court vacated the April 18, 2002, Board of Veterans' Appeals
    decision that denied service connection for the cause of the veteran's death and remanded the matter
    for readjudication. On December 4, 2003, the appellant, through counsel, filed a timely motion for
    a panel decision. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the parties' prior pleadings, and the record
    on appeal, it is
    ORDERED that the appellant's motion for a panel decision is denied.
    DATED: February 25, 2004                              PER CURIAM.
    STEINBERG, Judge, concurring: I voted to deny the appellant's motion for a panel decision.
    I agree with the appellant that it would be preferable for the Court in the instant appeal to address
    the question of law presented by the appellant as to whether cancer in the larynx that metastacized
    from a cancer not listed as presumptively service connected in 
    38 C.F.R. § 3.309
    (e) (2003), adopted
    pursuant to 
    38 U.S.C. § 1116
    (b), is a presumptively service-connected disease under that regulation,
    taking into consideration 
    38 U.S.C. §§ 1113
    , 1116(a)(1) and 
    38 C.F.R. § 3.307
    (d) (2003); cf. VA
    Gen. Coun. Prec. 18-97 (May 2, 1997). See Mahl v. Principi, 
    15 Vet.App. 37
    , 40-47 (per curiam
    order) (2001) (Steinberg, J., dissenting). Nonetheless, I believe that the decision in the Court's
    dispositive order in the instant case that the BVA should address that question of law, with an
    adequate statement of reasons or bases under 
    38 U.S.C. § 7104
    (a), (d)(1), before the Court
    undertakes to do so is a reasonable one under the circumstances of this case and does not warrant
    the intervention of a panel.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-720

Judges: Kramer, Farley, Steinberg

Filed Date: 2/25/2004

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/16/2024