Legal Opinion · Dissent

Francis M. Jackson v. Eric K. Shinseki

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Decided March 6, 2014No. 12-0738Published

1DissentSchoelen, Judge

The majority’s holding relieves the Secretary of his statutory obligation pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5904(d)(2) to honor a valid contingency fee agreement between the appellant and the veteran and allows an absurd result, which permits an accrued-benefits claimant to collect more monetary benefits than what was “due and unpaid” to the veteran at the time of his death. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.

As noted by my colleagues, there is no dispute that the appellant and the veteran entered into a valid contingency fee agreement pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c)(1) and (d)(1),(2)(A)(i)(ii).…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Zevalkink v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
  2. Zevalkink v. BrownUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1994
  3. Mitchell Scates, Jr. v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs v. Kenneth B. Mason, Jr., Intervenor-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
  4. Charles L. Breedlove Brenda Breedlove v. Eric K. ShinsekiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2010
  5. Jackson v. SHINSEKICourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API