Francis M. Jackson v. Eric K. Shinseki
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
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
- Zevalkink v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Zevalkink v. BrownUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1994
- 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
- Charles L. Breedlove Brenda Breedlove v. Eric K. ShinsekiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2010
- Jackson v. SHINSEKICourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.