# Gantt v. West Aggregated by Superinsight from public-domain sources, as of 2026-09-08. Domain: va/cavc. --- ## Gantt v. West, 11 Vet. App. 262 (1998) {#8205381} *11 Vet. App. 262* _Gantt v. West, 11 Vet. App. 262, decided 1998-06-05._ ORDER PER CURIAM: On April 17, 1998, the Secretary filed with the Court the Designation of Record (DOR) pursuant to Rule 10 of the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The DOR contained a Certificate of Service that is required by Rule 25 of the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Certificate of Service stated, in relevant part: I hereby certify [ ... ] that a copy of the foregoing Appellee’s Designation of Record on Appeal was placed in the VA mail system to be transferred to the U.S. Postal Service for mailing ... The Certificate of Service was signed and dated April 17, 1998, the date of filing with the Court. The appellant has moved to strike the Certificate of Service, arguing that it does not comport with the requirements of Rule 25. Attached to the appellant’s motion to strike the Certificate of Service is a copy of the actual envelope used and dated by the U.S. Postal Service showing a date of April 23, 1998, as the date of mailing. The Secretary has responded to the appellant’s motion arguing that the certificate of service accurately reflects the Secretary’s actions of placing the document into the internal VA mail system to be transferred to the U.S. Postal Service and that rather than object to the manner of service, the appellant would have been better served requesting an extension. *263The Court Rules require that a copy of any paper filed by any party or amicus must, at or before the time of filing, be served by the party or amicus on all other parties and amici to the appeal. U.S.Vet.App. R. 25(c). The manner of service may be personal or by mail. U.S. Vet.App. R. 25(d). The term “mail” is generally interpreted to express the ordinary meaning of the word used. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “mailed” as follows: “A letter, package, or other mailable matter is ‘mailed’ when it .is properly addressed, stamped with the proper postage, and deposited in a proper place for receipt of mail”. Black’s Law DICTIONARY 952 (6th ed.1990) (citing Texas Casualty Ins. Co. v. McDonald, 269 S.W.2d 456 (Tex.Civ.App.1954)); see Jones v. Brown, 41 F.3d 634 (Fed.Cir.1994); see also Karnas v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 308 (1991) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary’s definitions of “case” and “appeal”). Webster’s Dictionary defines the verb “mail” as “to send by mail, as by putting into a mailbox; post”, and defines the noun “mail” as “letters, papers, packages, etc. handled, transported, and delivered by the post office”. Webster’s New World Dictionary 814 (3rd ed.1988). As this Court noted in Davis v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 298, 302 (1994), The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit noted that “Webster’s [New Collegiate Dictionary (1973)-] defines mail as ‘... letters ... conveyed under public authority’” and held that “[s]ince Federal Express is not a public authority, they are not a form of ‘mail’ ” under Rule 25(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which “provides that ‘briefs ... shall be deemed filed on the day of mailing if the most expeditious form of delivery by mail, excepting special delivery, is utilized.’” Prince v. Poulos, 876 F.2d 30, 32 n. 1 (5th Cir.1989). In a case involving an Arizona unemployment insurance statute and regulations (where the term “filed by mail” was used in an agency appeal-rights notification), the court stated: “While it is undisputed that there are many private companies engaged in the delivery of documents for a fee, the only entity authorized to deliver mail is the United States Postal Service.” Northland Pioneer College v. Zarco, 179 Ariz. 44, 47, 875 P.2d 1349, 1352 (1994) (emphasis added). In a case where a city code required that notice of a lease renewal offer be sent by “mail”, the court held: “The term ‘mail’ has been defined as the whole body of matter transported by postal agents, or any letter or package forming a component part of it”. Reliance Properties, Inc. v. Cruz, 143 Misc.2d 556, 544 N.Y.S.2d 901, 901 (N.Y.Sup.App.Div.1989) (citing 72 C.J.S. Postal Service § 2). The term “mail” as used in Rule 25 of the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure shall mean nothing less. A document placed into the internal VA mailing system to be thereafter delivered or transferred to the U.S. Postal Service is not “mailed” as required by Rule 25(d). See Neuman v. Neuman, 377 A.2d 393, 398 (D.C.1977) (“Service by mail must be accomplished so as to allow delay only within the official channels of the United States mail, not through inter-office or other institutional delays.”). While the Secretary’s Certificate of Service may accurately reflect the Secretary’s actions with respect to this document, these actions do not conform with the Court’s Rules to serve each document filed on the appellant personally or by mail, at or before the time of filing. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the appellant’s motion to strike the Certificate of Service is granted. It is farther ORDERED that the Docket Sheet shall be amended to reflect that the DOR was received by the Court, but not filed. It is further ORDERED that within 7 days after the date of this order the Secretary file an amended Certificate of Service reflecting proper service. On the date of receipt of a proper, amended Certificate of Service, the DOR shall be deemed filed in the Court. It is further ORDERED that within 20 days after the date of this order the Secretary inform the Court whether he can comply with Rule 25 of the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure in all cases before the Court within 30 days *264or whether additional time will be required to institute proper procedures. --- ## Gantt v. West, 11 Vet. App. 264 (1998) {#8205382} *11 Vet. App. 264* _Gantt v. West, 11 Vet. App. 264, decided 1998-07-07._ ORDER PER CURIAM: ' On June 5, 1998, the Court issued a prece-dential order in which the Secretary’s use of an internal VA mailing and distribution process was found to be invalid for the purpose of satisfying the service requirements found in Rule 25 of the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Gantt v. West, 11 Vet.App. 262 (per curiam order 1998). Aso on June 5, 1998, the Secretary was ordered to inform the Court whether he could comply with Rule 25 of the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure in all cases before the Court within 30 days or whether additional time would be required to institute proper procedures. Rather than respond to the Court’s order, on June 17,1998, the Secretary instead chose to express his disagreement with the Court’s ruling. The Secretary, suggesting a valid comparison to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure which have not been adopted by this Court, contends that placing documents into the internal VA mailing system to be delivered thereafter to the U.S. Postal Ser*265vice is “analogous to service by means of a third-party commercial carrier” which is allowed by the Federal Rules of Appellate Practice. The Secretary did not express any intention of changing his current service procedures. On June 22, 1998, the appellant moved for leave to respond to the Secretary’s response. Lest the previous ruling be unclear, the Court will reiterate that a document placed into the internal VA mailing system to be thereafter delivered or transferred to the U.S. Postal Service is not “mailed” pursuant to Rule 25(d) and does not constitute valid service under the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. A VA contract employee who works in the mail room is not an official of the U.S. Postal Service. Since Rule 25 of this Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, as currently written, does not provide for service by commercial overnight delivery, the Secretary’s proffered analogy must be and is rejected. More instructive for our purposes is Rule 29(3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States which provides that “[a]ny document required by these Rules to be served may be served personally or by mail on each party to the proceeding at or before the time of filing.... If service is by mail, it shall consist of depositing the document with the United States Postal Service, with no less than first-class postage prepaid ...” The appellant has pointed out yet another anomaly in the Secretary’s service procedures which merits some discussion. The Secretary’s response to the June 5, 1998, Court order was received by the Court and filed on June 17, 1998. Attached to the Secretary’s response was a Certificate of Service, as required by Rule 25(e) of this Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, as set forth below: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this date, a copy of the foregoing Secretary’s Response was placed in the VA system of mails for mailing, postage prepaid, to: Laura L. Scudder Attorney for Paul H. Gantt 61 Eagles Trail Fairfield, PA 17320 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 6/18/98 Date /s/- GARY E. O’CONNOR Attorney for Appellee The Certificate of Service is “dated” the day following receipt and filing by the Court. As written, this Certificate does not satisfy the Court’s service rules which require service “at or before the time of filing.” U.S.VetApp. R. 25(c). The appellant has rather diplomatically labeled this Certificate of Service as perhaps containing a built in “fudge factor.” It is unacceptable for an officer of this Court to certify a fact when, at the time of the certification, the fact has not occurred. Certification of service is not a game or a step to be taken lightly; it is an attestation by a member the bar that an event of legal significance has taken place. Giving the benefit of the doubt to our practitioners, who are officers of the Court and who presumably know and understand their responsibility not to intentionally misstate facts to this tribunal, the Court on this occasion will view this date as an unintentional error rather than an intentional tactic. Nevertheless, correction and compliance with Rule 25(b) are required. Further, although the Court’s jurisprudence is clear, the inapt nature of the Secretary’s Response and the non-complying service described by language of the accompanying Certificate of Service (“placed in the VA system of mails for mailing, postage prepaid,” (emphasis added)) prompts the Court to note that, in a precedential decision, we have held that the Secretary’s current practice does not conform to the requirements of Rule 25(d). See Gantt v. West, 11 Vet.App. 262 (per curiam order 1998). As this Court noted in Tobler v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 8, 11 (1991), any legal interpretations, conclusions or rulings contained in *266precedential decisions are the law of the jurisdiction from the date of the ruling unless or until overturned by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Secretary’s recourse is to seek to overturn the decision or to propose a change in the Rule but, unless or until one of those events occurs, the Secretary is bound to comply with the precedential decision of this Court in all cases. Therefore, effective with the filing of this order, all pleadings, briefs, motions, and other papers submitted for filing by the Secretary will be returned if the Certificate of Service does not indicate that the Secretary through his counsel has effected service at or before the time of filing either by personal delivery or by depositing the item served directly into the United States mail. Delivery to VA mail, “the VA system of mails,” VA contractor employees, or inter-office mail does not constitute service under Rule 25. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the appellant’s motion for leave to respond to the Secretary’s response is granted. It is further ORDERED that the Docket Sheet shall be amended to reflect that the Secretary’s Response was received by the Court, but not filed. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to return the Secretary’s Response because the method of service upon the appellant described in the Certificate of Service was not in compliance with Rule 25(d). It is further ORDERED that, within 2 days after the date of this order, the Secretary shall file a Response with a Certificate of Service reflecting proper service. On the date of receipt of a proper, amended Certificate of Service, the Secretary’s Response shall be deemed filed in the Court.