This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. Both come in appeals of decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and both address standing. Here are their introductions.
Perciavalle v. Collins (Precedential)
We address here two appeals involving slight variations of a generally shared scenario. Each appellant-claimant sought review by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) of an unfavorable action by a Veterans Affairs (“VA”) regional office (“RO”). The Board initially dismissed the appeals as untimely, but did so based on a clearly erroneous miscalculation of a filing deadline. After the affected claimants filed notices of appeal in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), seeking to reverse the erroneous dismissals and have their cases restored to the Board’s active review docket, the Board recognized its error and unilaterally restored the claimants’ cases to its docket, thereby providing the full extent of the relief the claimants were then seeking in their pending Veterans Court appeals.
The question these appeals present is whether, in such circumstances, the Veterans Court may dismiss the appeals before it as moot based on the Board’s sua sponte grant of the entirety of the claimants’ requested relief. A divided Veterans Court held that it could do so. The claimants appeal that determination, arguing that the filing of a notice of appeal to the Veterans Court immediately divests the Board of jurisdiction, thereby rendering void the actions taken by the Board during the pendency of the Veterans Court appeals.
For the reasons stated below, the claimants lack standing to pursue these appeals before this court. We therefore lack jurisdiction and, accordingly, dismiss.
Knerz v. Collins (Precedential)
We address here two appeals involving slight variations of a generally shared scenario. Each appellant-claimant sought review by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) of an unfavorable action by a Veterans Affairs (“VA”) regional office (“RO”). The Board initially dismissed the appeals as untimely, but did so based on a clearly erroneous miscalculation of a filing deadline. After the affected claimants filed notices of appeal in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), seeking to reverse the erroneous dismissals and have their cases restored to the Board’s active review docket, the Board recognized its error and unilaterally restored the claimants’ cases to its docket, thereby providing the full extent of the relief the claimants were then seeking in their pending Veterans Court appeals.
The question these appeals present is whether, in such circumstances, the Veterans Court may dismiss the appeals before it as moot based on the Board’s sua sponte grant of the entirety of the claimants’ requested relief. A divided Veterans Court held that it could do so. The claimants appeal that determination, arguing that the filing of a notice of appeal to the Veterans Court immediately divests the Board of jurisdiction, thereby rendering void the actions taken by the Board during the pendency of the Veterans Court appeals.
For the reasons stated below, the claimants lack standing to pursue these appeals before this court. We therefore lack jurisdiction and, accordingly, dismiss.