Veteran Court Panel Reconsideration Motion, Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App.

Excerpt from decision below:
"... it is the decision of the panel that the appellant fails to demonstrate that 1) the single-judge memorandum decision overlooked or misunderstood a fact or point of law, 2) there is any conflict with precedential decisions of the Court, or 3) that the appeal otherwise raises an issue warranting a precedential decision. U.S. VET. APP. R. 35(e); see also Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 23, 25-26 (1990)."

----------------------------------------------------


Designated for electronic publication only
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
NO. 09-0622
ROBERT L. BELCHER,
V.
APPELLANT,
ERIC K. SHINSEKI,
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
APPELLEE.

Before KASOLD, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and GREENE, Judges.

ORDER
Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),
this action may not be cited as precedent.

In a memorandum decision dated December 21, 2010, the Court affirmed the underlying December 20, 2007, Board of Veterans' Appeals decision that denied entitlement to service
connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. On January 7, 2011, the appellant filed a timely motion for reconsideration and, alternatively, for a panel decision. Reconsideration will be denied by the single judge, and the motion for decision by a panel will be granted.
Based on review of the pleadings and the record on appeal, it is the decision of the panel that the appellant fails to demonstrate that 1) the single-judge memorandum decision overlooked or misunderstood a fact or point of law, 2) there is any conflict with precedential decisions of the Court, or 3) that the appeal otherwise raises an issue warranting a precedential decision. U.S. VET. APP. R. 35(e); see also Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 23, 25-26 (1990).
Absent further motion by the parties or order by the Court, judgment will enter on the underlying single-judge decision in accordance with Rules 35 and 36 of the Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED, by the single judge, that the motion for reconsideration is denied. It is further
ORDERED, by the panel, that the motion for panel decision is granted. It is further
ORDERED, by the panel, that the single-judge memorandum decision remains the decision of the Court.
DATED: May 20, 2011
Copies to:
Robert V. Chisholm, Esq.
VA General Counsel (027)
PER CURIAM.
2