Danny E. Saintignon v. JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2005-7191
DANNY E. SAINTIGNON,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.
Danny E. Saintignon, of Fayetteville, Arkansas, pro se.
James W. Poirer, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United
States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. With him
on the brief were Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson,
Director, and Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director.
Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.

-- 1 of 4 --

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2005-7191
DANNY E. SAINTIGNON,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D.,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
in 04-295, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.
__________________________
DECIDED: November 10, 2008
__________________________
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Danny E. Saintignon (“Saintignon”) appeals from the August 3, 2005, final
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”)
affirming an October 7, 2003, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“BVA”) that
denied service connection for residuals of a head injury. We remand.
I
Before the Veterans Court, Saintignon raised three arguments. First, he argued
that he had not been provided one of the notices required by 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1)

-- 2 of 4 --

(2004), and asserted that if he had received proper notice he “might [have been] able to
present evidence that [would have] resulted in [his] claim being granted.” The Veterans
Court rejected Saintignon’s argument on this point because then-applicable Veterans
Court precedent, Mayfield v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 103 (2005), put the burden of
showing prejudice from faulty notice on the veteran, and the Veterans Court held that
Saintignon failed to show such prejudice.
Second, Saintignon argued that he was prejudiced by inadequate notice given to
him at the BVA hearing as to the evidence he needed to submit to substantiate his
claim. This argument was also rejected by the Veterans Court under Mayfield on the
ground that Saintignon failed to show “any prejudice that would justify remanding this
case for a new hearing.”
Finally, Saintignon argued that the BVA improperly considered Social Security
Administration (“SSA”) records. This argument was also rejected by the Veterans Court
on its holding that, under Mayfield, Saintignon failed to show prejudicial error from the
BVA's alleged error in considering the SSA records.
II
On September 7, 2005, Saintignon, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal from
the final decision of the Veterans Court. His appeal was stayed (along with many
others) pending this court’s review of the Mayfield decision. On May 16, 2007, this
court overruled Mayfield, holding that the burden to show lack of prejudice from faulty
section 3.159(b) notice falls on the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs
(“Secretary”), not on the veteran. See Sanders v. Nicholson, 487 F.3d 881 (2007).
2005-7191 2

-- 3 of 4 --

2005-7191 3
Following the issuance of the Sanders decision, the stay on this case (and the
others being held for the Sanders decision) was lifted. On December 10, 2007, the
Secretary—recognizing that at least the first ground decided by the Veterans Court was
incorrect under Sanders—moved to remand this case to the Veterans Court for further
proceedings. In response to that motion, this court asked Saintignon how he wished to
proceed. His pro se response said he seeks review of “all issues” and “believes this
appeal should move forward as seen by the court.” Consequently, this court set the
case for briefing in the ordinary course, and at completion of briefing the case was
assigned to this panel.
III
The Secretary renews his request that the case be remanded in light of the error
by the Veterans Court in applying Mayfield to the facts of Saintignon’s case.
Saintignon’s informal brief does not address with particularity the three issues decided
by the Veterans Court. Instead, he insists that the facts of record demonstrate his
entitlement to the benefits he seeks. In his informal reply brief, Saintignon avers that he
has met his “burden of proof.”
IV
We agree with the Secretary that we must remand Saintignon’s case because,
after Sanders, the Secretary is required to shoulder the burden with regard to whether
the notice failure is prejudicial. Because the Veterans Court also applied Mayfield to
reject Saintignon’s other arguments, remand of the case is appropriate.

-- 4 of 4 --