TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kuo v. Brown

David KUO v. Jesse BROWN, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

Kuo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 273 (Vet. App. 1993)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Federal Specialty Courts
Decided
August 4, 1993
Docket
No. 91-1053
Judges
Farley, Ivers, Mankin
Citations
9 Vet. App. 2731993 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 8941993 WL 837039

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

ORDER PER CURIAM.

On June 19, 1991, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal listing September 25, 1990, as the date on which he filed his Notice of Disagreement (NOD). On August 4, 1992, the Court issued an opinion denying the motion of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) for summary affirmance, vacating the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA), and remanding the matter. On August 18, 1992, the Secretary filed a motion to vacate the order and dismiss on the basis that the NOD was jurisdictionally invalid. Appellant, through his attorney, opposed the motion on the basis that appellant’s September 25, 1990, correspondence had been filed in response to a new rating action by the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (RO) after the BVA had remanded the ease on April 30,1990. The Court stayed the case pending a decision in Hamilton v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 528 (1993).

The Court has jurisdiction only over cases in which an NOD was filed on or after November 18, 1988, see Veterans’ Judicial Review Act, Pub.L. No. 100-687 § 402 (1988) (found at 38 U.S.C.A. § 7251 note (West 1991)). Although the record indicates that the BVA remanded appellant’s claim for additional readjudication in April 1990, there can be only one valid NOD as to a particular claim until a final RO or BVA decision has been rendered in that matter, or the appeal has been withdrawn by the claimant. Hamilton , 4 Vet-App. at 538. The initial NOD in this appeal was filed prior to November 18, 1988. On consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the stay in this case is dissolved. It is further

ORDERED that the Secretary’s motion is granted, the Court’s order of August 4, 1992, is vacated, and this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

2001: 120012026peak 2001 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hayre v. Principi15 Vet. App. 48 (Vet. App. 2001)

Most recent

  1. Hayre v. Principi15 Vet. App. 48 (Vet. App. 2001)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Hamilton v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 528 (Vet. App. 1993) 119

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list