UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS No. 20-7251 WILLIAM E. TERRY, APPELLANT, V. DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Argued December 7, 2022 Decided October 19, 2023) Matthew G. Greig, of Little Rock, Arkansas, for the appellant. Ronen Z. Morris, with whom Richard A. Sauber, General Counsel; Mary Ann Flynn, Chief Counsel; and Christopher W. Wallace, Deputy Chief Counsel, all of Washington, D.C., were on the brief for the appellee. Morgan MacIsaac-Bykowski, of Gulfport, Florida, with whom Philip Randolph Seybold, Justin M. Rusk, and Tyler Guy Welti, all of Washington, D.C., were on the brief for the National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium and the National Organization of Veterans' Advocates as amici curiae. Linda E. Blauhut, with whom Jennifer Zajac, both of Washington, D.C., was on the brief for Paralyzed Veterans of America as amicus curiae. Christopher Glenn Murray, with whom Renee Burbank, Richard Spataro, Barton F. Stichman, and Stacy A. Tromble, all of Washington, D.C., were on the brief for the National Veterans Legal Services Program as amicus curiae. Amy F. Odom, with whom Zachary M. Stolz, both of Providence, Rhode Island, were on the brief for Marvin Loyd as amicus curiae. Before PIETSCH, GREENBERG, and ALLEN, Judges. PIETSCH, Judge: In this timely appeal over which the Court has jurisdiction, see 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a), 7266(a), appellant William E. Terry challenges a June 18, 2020, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision (1) ordering that "[t]he claim for service connection for sleep apnea remains denied" because Mr. Terry did not submit new and relevant evidence,1 and determining 1 Mr. Terry does not challenge the Board's determination that no new and relevant evidence had been that the only question in the sleep apnea matter before the Board was whether new and relevant evidence had been presented or secured with respect to Mr. Terry's supplemental claim; and (2) denying entitlement to service connection for basal cell carcinoma. Record (R.) at 5-11. This appeal was referred to a panel of the Court because it involves issues of first impression concerning provisions of the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (AMA),2 specifically 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C(a) and 5108(a), and their operation with 38 U.S.C. §§ 5110(a)(2), 7104, and 7105. The threshold question concerning Mr. Terry's sleep apnea claim is whether, under 38 U.S.C. § 5104C(a), Congress allowed a claimant to file more than one administrative review request3 in response to, and within 1 year of, an agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on a claim, provided the review requests are not pending concurrently?4 Mr. Terry and amici curiae argue yes. The Secretary disagrees and argues that Congress intended for a claimant to file each administrative review request in response to, and within 1 year of, the most recent AOJ decision on a claim. Essentially, the Secretary contends that once a claimant makes one administrative review request on an AOJ decision on a claim, the claimant can't under any circumstances use another …
Original document