Simmons, No. 98-354 (Vet. App. 2000)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on May 12, 2000.
Download PDF
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO . 98-354 RICHARD D. SIMMONS, APPELLANT , v. HERSHEL W. GOBER, ACTING SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. Before HOLDAWAY, STEINBERG, and GREENE, Judges. ORDER The appellant appeals, through counsel, a January 1998, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) that determined that an April 1977 decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office, which had denied VA service connection for arthritis and a nervous disorder, did not contain clear and unmistakable error. On August 30, 2000, the Court issued an opinion affirming the Board decision. Simmons v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 84 (2000). Subsequently, Congress enacted several laws regarding veterans benefits claims. See Holliday v. Gober, __ Vet.App. __, No. 99-1788,2000 WL 1770048 (Dec. 1, 2000) (per curiam order) (discussing recent Congressional enactments) [hereinafter Holliday briefing order] (a copy of which is attached to this order). In view of the changes in law described in the Holliday briefing order, the Court requires supplemental briefing from the parties on the following questions: Do any of the new laws discussed in the Holliday briefing order apply to this claim; if so, which provision(s) and how does any applicable provision affect this case? In addition, in such supplemental briefing, each party may, but need not, address the questions enumerated in the Holliday briefing order. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that, not later than 30 days after the date of this order, the Secretary file and serve on the appellant a memorandum in response to this order. It is further ORDERED that, not later than 30 days after service of the Secretary's memorandum, the appellant file a response to this order and the Secretary's response thereto. DATED: December 21, 2000 PER CURIAM.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
