Scates v. West

Scates v. West, No. 97-0876, decided 2000-02-23.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO . 97-875

MITCHELL SCATES, JR., APPELLANT ,

v.

TOGO D. WEST , JR., SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE,

KENNETH B. MASON , JR., INTERVENOR.

               Before NEBEKER, Chief Judge, and KRAMER, FARLEY,
              HOLDAWAY, IVERS, STEINBERG, and GREENE, Judges.

                                        ORDER

    On February 2, 2000, the Court granted the intervenor's motion for a full Court decision,

and directed that oral argument be scheduled. On February 7, 2000, amicus curiae filed a motion asking the Court to require the Secretary to file, prior to oral argument, a reply to the response of amicus curiae to the intervenor's motion for full Court review. Upon consideration of the motion of amicus curiae, it is

    ORDERED that the aforesaid motion is granted, and that the Secretary shall, within 20

days of the date of this order, file a memorandum stating (1) the Secretary's position as to whether In the Matter of the Fee Agreement of Mason, 13 Vet.App. 79 (1999), is controlling in this appeal; (2) the Secretary's position on the applicability of 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.607 and 20.1304; and (3) whether the Secretary contests amicus curiae's interpretation of Department of Veterans Affairs General Counsel Precedent Opinion 22-95 (Sept. 22, 1995).

DATED: February 23, 2000 PER CURIAM.

Scates v. West, No. 97-0877, decided 2000-02-02.

This version contains the errata of February 8, 2000 - e

      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO . 97-875

MITCHELL SCATES, JR., APPELLANT ,

       V.

TOGO D. WEST , JR., SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

KENNETH B. MASON , JR., INTERVENOR.

      Before NEBEKER, Chief Judge, and KRAMER, FARLEY, HOLDAWAY,
                  IVERS, STEINBERG, and GREENE, Judges.

                                        ORDER

    After the Court issued its opinion in Scates v. West, 13 Vet.App. 98 (1999), the intervenor

filed a motion for reconsideration and an alternative motion for a full Court decision. Because a majority of the panel voted to deny reconsideration, the alternative motion for a full Court decision was circulated to the full Court. Thereafter, on December 15, 1999, amicus curiae for the appellant was requested to file a reply to the intervenor's motion, and on January 14, 2000, counsel for the appellant filed such a reply. On January 24, 2000, the intervenor responded.

   A majority of the Court has voted to grant the intervenor's motion. The Clerk is directed to

schedule this case for oral argument as soon as the business of the Court permits.

   On consideration of the foregoing, it is

   ORDERED that the intervenor's motion for a full Court decision is granted. It is further

   ORDERED that the Court's decision in Scates, supra, is withdrawn.

DATED: February 2, 2000 PER CURIAM.

Scates v. West, 13 Vet. App. 304, decided 2000-02-02.

*305ORDER

PER CURIAM: After the Court issued its opinion in Scates v. West, 13 Vet.App. 98 (1999), the intervenor filed a motion for reconsideration and an alternative motion for a full Court decision. Because a majority of the panel voted to deny reconsideration, the alternative motion for a full Court decision was circulated to the full Court. Thereafter, on December 15, 1999, amicus curiae for the appellant was requested to file a reply to the intervenor’s motion, and on January 14, 2000, counsel for the appellant filed such a reply. On January 24, 2000, the intervenor responded.

A majority of the Court has voted to grant the intervenor’s motion. The Clerk is directed to schedule this case for oral argument as soon as the business of the Court permits.

On consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the intervenor’s motion for a full Court decision is granted. It is further

ORDERED that the Court’s decision in Scates, supra, is withdrawn.

Scates v. West, 13 Vet. App. 361, decided 2000-02-23.

ORDER

PER CURIAM: On February 2, 2000, the Court granted the intervenor’s. motion for a full Court decision, and directed that oral argument be scheduled. On February 7, 2000, ami-cus curiae filed a motion asking the Court to require the Secretary to file, prior to oral argument, a reply to the response of amicus curiae to the intervenor’s motion for full Court review. Upon consideration of the motion of amicus curiae, it is

ORDERED that the aforesaid motion is granted, and that the Secretary shall, within 20 days of the date of this order, file a memorandum stating (1) the Secretary’s position as to whether In the Matter of the Fee Agreement of Mason, 13 Vet.App. 79 (1999), is controlling in this appeal; (2) the Secretary’s position on the applicability of 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.607 and 20.1304; and (3) whether the Secretary contests amicus curiae’s interpretation of Department of Veterans Affairs General Counsel Precedent Opinion 22-95 (Sept. 22, 1995).