Gene S. Groves v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

GENE S. GROVES,
Claimant-Appellant,
V.
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee.

2010-7057

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in 06-1252, Chief Judge William P.
Greene, Jr.

ON MOTION

Before GAJARSA, SCHALL, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.

ORDER

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to remand
this case so that the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims may rule on a motion for reconsideration
filed by Gene S. Groves. Groves opposes.

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="GROVES v. DVA" -->

On November 25, 2009, the Court of Appeals for Vet-
erans Claims issued a decision that affirmed a portion of
the December 1, 2005 determination of the Board of
Veterans' Appeals that there was no clear and unmistak-
able error in a September 1972 regional office decision.
The decision also vacated a portion of the December 1,
2005 Board decision that denied entitlement to vocational
rehabilitation services and remanded for readjudication.
Also on November 25, 2009, Groves filed a motion chal-
lenging a previous order in the case that denied Groves'
earlier motion that the assigned judge recuse himself. On
December 9, 2009, Groves filed an additional motion
seeking reconsideration of the November 25, 2009 deci-
sion on the merits of his case. In that December 9 motion,
Groves asked for reconsideration by a panel or by the
court en banc.

On January 14, 2010, the judge construed Groves'
November 25 motion as a motion for reconsideration of
his previous order refusing to recuse himself. The judge
denied reconsideration of his recusal determination. The
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims entered judgment
on January 14, 2010. Groves filed an appeal on February
2, 2010. However, there is no express ruling on the
docket regarding Groves' December 9 motion for reconsid-
eration of the decision on the merits. The Secretary
argues that absent a ruling on the December 9 motion for
reconsideration, Groves' appeal is premature.

Groves argues that he prefers to have a decision by
this court "on the record as it now stands." We agree with
the Secretary that judgment was prematurely entered by
the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims because it had
not ruled on Groves' December 9 motion for reconsidera-
tion of the decision on the merits. Thus, we grant the
Secretary's motion for remand. We anticipate that the
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims will promptly rule
on the pending motion and enter judgment when appro-

<!-- PageBreak -->

GROVES v. DVA
priate. When judgment is entered by that court, Groves
may again appeal to seek review of any issue within this
court's jurisdiction for which there is a final adverse
decision.

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The motion is granted. The case is remanded.

FOR THE COURT

NOV 1 5 2010

Date

/s/ Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk

cc: Gene S. Groves
Steven M. Mager, Esq.

Issued As A Mandate:

NOV 1 5 2010

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIPCINIT
NOV 15 2010

JAN HORBALY
CLERK