Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
11-3083 #204

11-3083 #204

Ratings: (0)|Views: 12|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
EQCF Dkt #204 - ORDER asking for clarification of Secretary's supplemental memo
EQCF Dkt #204 - ORDER asking for clarification of Secretary's supplemental memo

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Oct 10, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 Not published 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
 N
O
.
 
11-3083C
ARMEN
J.
 
C
ARDONA
,A
PPELLANT
,
V
.
 
E
RIC
K.
 
S
HINSEKI
,S
ECRETARY OF
V
ETERANS
A
FFAIRS
,A
PPELLEE
.
O R D E R 
 Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),this action may not be cited as precedent.
On September 20, 2013, the parties were ordered to submit supplemental memoranda of lawaddressing whether a case or controversy remains in this matter. The order also instructed theSecretary to address, inter alia, whether he has taken steps to pay the appellant those benefits denied by the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board). On October 4, the Secretary submitted his supplementalmemorandum, as well as a motion to vacate the Board decision and remand the case.The Secretary's supplemental memorandum notes that, pursuant to the President's directive,"VA will no longer enforce" 38 U.S.C. § 101(3) and (31) to the extent those provisions limitveterans' benefits to married couples of the opposite sex. Memorandum at 2. But the Secretary alsoindicates that no steps have been taken to pay the appellant those benefits denied by the Board,asserting that "VA lacks the ability to act on the claim due to the pendency of the appeal," and that,once the appellant's claim is remanded to the Board, "application of the President's directive shouldresult in a grant of additional compensation benefits."
 Id.
at 2-3.For clarification purposes, the pendency of this appeal is not a bar to the parties settling thismatter, to the Secretary offering to settle this matter, or to the Secretary beginning to issue payments,so clarification is needed as to whether a settlement has been offered and why, given the Secretary'sassertion that he will no longer enforce section 101(3) and (31), payments have not been issued.
See Dofflemyer v. Brown
, 4 Vet.App. 339, 339 (1993) (noting statutory authority of the Secretary tocompromise and settle litigation in this Court); U.S. V
ET
.
 
A
PP
.
 
R. 42 (providing Court procedureswhere parties file motion to terminate a matter based upon a settlement agreement).Accordingly, it is
Case No. 11-3083 EQCF Dkt #204 Filed 10/09/2013

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->