Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

262 F. App'x 275

Tuggles v. Peake

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided January 22, 2008

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2008-01-22

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2015

Applies 38 U.S.C. § 5103

Relies on Sanders v. Nicholson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2008-01-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1ORDER

¶2The Secretary of Veterans Affairs responds to the court’s November 20, 2007 order and requests that the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) in Tuggles v. Nicholson, 04-1496 be summarily affirmed. Vincent D. Tuggles has not responded.

¶3The Secretary appealed from the CAVC’s decision, challenging the court’s placement of the burden on the Secretary of establishing that a 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) notification error was not prejudicial. In Sanders v. Nicholson, 487 F.3d 881 (Fed. Cir.2007) this court held that any section 5103(a) error should be presumed prejudicial and the Secretary has the burden of rebutting this presumption. Id. at 891. Under these circumstances, summary affirmance is appropriate.

¶4Accordingly,

¶5IT IS ORDERED THAT:

¶6(1) The judgment of the CAVC is summarily affirmed. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

¶7(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

/262/fappx/275 · .json · Public domain