Harmon Carter, Jr. v. Eric K. Shinseki

I fully concur in the Court’s (1) holding today that the terms of a joint motion for remand (JMR) are for consideration when determining what issues might reasonably be raised by the record, as well as the Court’s application of that holding, and (2) application of Savage v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 259 (2011), to the facts in this case.

I cannot agree, however, with the majority’s view of professional responsibility with regard to managing a case. Succinctly stated, the Secretary confirmed at oral argument that, with regard to claims remanded by the Court, it is his practice to *548send claimants…