FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion granting-in-part a petition to review the interpretations by the Department of Veterans Affairs of two diagnostic codes used to award disability benefits. Notably, Judge Prost dissented. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

In June, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Military-Veterans Advocacy Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Military-Veterans Advocacy petitioned the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue a rule that would presume Agent Orange herbicide exposure for veterans who had served during specified periods in Guam or Johnston Island. After VA denied MVA’s petition, MVA petitioned the Federal Circuit to set aside VA’s denial and remand the case for rulemaking. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Newman and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit denied MVA’s petition. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a veterans case, denying a petition to set aside the Secretary of Veterans Affairs’ denial of rulemaking. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, in the second case, Judge Lourie dissented. Late yesterday the Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion granting in part and dismissing in part a petition to review a final rule promulgated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia and the Central District of California. Finally, late yesterday the court issued two nonprecedential orders dismissing cases for failure to prosecute. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders. 

In December, the court heard oral argument in Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a case arising from the Department of Veterans Affairs. We have been following this case because it attracted two amicus briefs in support of the petitioner, Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc. MVA challenges a denial of rulemaking by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that would have sought to extend the presumption of herbicide exposure to veterans who served on Guam from January 9, 1962, through December 31, 1980; Johnston Island from January 1, 1972, until September 30, 1977; and American Samoa. Judges Newman, Prost, Cunningham heard last month’s argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two Rule 36 judgments. The court also issued an erratum for the precedential opinion the court released yesterday. Here are the links to the Rule 36 judgments and the erratum.   

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, with hearings starting today. As it has for some time now, the Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. In total, including a case set to be argued next week, the court will convene 15 panels to consider about 61 cases. Of these 61 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 48. Of these argued cases, three attracted amicus briefs: two veterans cases and a benefits case. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

We are previewing three cases scheduled to be argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs. In this case, Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc. appeals a denial of rulemaking by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that would have sought to extend the presumption of herbicide exposure to veterans who served on Guam from January 9, 1962, through December 31, 1980; Johnston Island from January 1, 1972 until September 30, 1977; and American Samoa. Two amicus briefs support MVA on appeal. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second and third come in government contract cases appealed from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, respectively. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion invalidating three regulations issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs as inconsistent with the text of the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act. Here is the introduction to the opinion.