This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, the first addressing jurisdiction in a veteran’s case and the second addressing entitlement to attorneys’ fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion addressing entitlement to annuities by eligible survivors of U.S. military personnel. Finally, the court also dismissed a case. Here are the introductions to the opinion and a link to the dismissal.
Bean v. McDonough (Precedential)
Wilfred D. Bean appeals the December 30, 2021 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) in Bean v. McDonough, No. 19- 4116, 2021 WL 6143707 (Vet. App. Dec. 30, 2021). In that single-judge memorandum decision, the Veterans Court dismissed Mr. Bean’s appeal of the May 10, 2019 decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) for lack of jurisdiction. In its May 2019 decision, the Board dismissed Mr. Bean’s appeal of two rulings of the Oakland, California Regional Office (“RO”) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). J.A. 19–23. In the first ruling, in a decision dated September 10, 2013, the RO denied Mr. Bean’s claim for an effective date earlier than August 14, 2006, for the award of disability benefits for service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). J.A. 245–50. In the second ruling, in a Statement of the Case (“SOC”) dated September 21, 2015, the RO rejected Mr. Bean’s contention that he had pending before the VA an unadjudicated claim for benefits based upon service-connected generalized anxiety disorder or major depressive disorder. J.A. 51–73. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that the Veterans Court erred in ruling that it lacked jurisdiction. We therefore reverse the court’s decision and remand the case to the court for further proceedings.
Crawford v. United States (Precedential)
John Crawford appeals a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims holding Mr. Crawford is not entitled to attorneys’ fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). We reverse.
Schussler v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Cindy Schussler appeals a decision of the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) granting the government’s motion for judgment on the administrative record as to her suit for payment under the Survivor Benefit Plan (“SBP”), a federal program that pays annuities to eligible survivors of U.S. military personnel. We affirm.