skip navigation

Internal Operating Procedures
Reconsideration, Requests for Panel Decision, and Subsequent Appeals

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Internal Operating Procedures


III.  Reconsideration, Requests for Panel Decision, and Subsequent Appeals


(a) Reconsideration and/or Request for Panel Decision.


  • (1) If a party timely moves for reconsideration of a single-judge memorandum decision or dispositive order, the motion is sent to the author Judge for decision. Reconsideration will be granted if the author Judge concludes that the movant has demonstrated that the memorandum decision overlooked or misunderstood a fact or point of law.

  • (2) If a party timely moves for panel decision in a case where a single-judge decision has been issued, without first seeking reconsideration by the author Judge, the motion nevertheless is referred to the author Judge for potential sua sponte reconsideration. If sua sponte reconsideration is granted, the request for panel decision is mooted.

  • (3) If a panel decision is requested and the author Judge of the single-judge decision denies reconsideration, the panel motion is forwarded to CLS for evaluation of the case and preparation of a memorandum addressing the issues and possible disposition. The memorandum is forwarded to a panel of three Judges that includes the author Judge of the single-judge decision and two Judges serving in regular active status, selected in accordance with Section V(b)(1), below.

  • (4) On review by the assigned panel, the single-judge decision will be withdrawn and a decision of the panel substituted therefor if a majority of the panel find that the movant has demonstrated that


    • (A) the single-judge memorandum decision overlooked or misunderstood a fact or point of law and that error was prejudicial to the outcome of the appeal, or

    • B) the single-judge memorandum decision is in conflict with precedential decisions of the Court, or
    • (C) the appeal otherwise raises an issue warranting a precedential decision.

  •   If a majority of the panel find that the movant has not demonstrated that the single-judge decision should be withdrawn, the panel shall direct that the single-judge decision remains the decision of the Court. In such instance, the panel's decision is nonprecedential and the single-judge decision remains nonprecedential.

  • (5) A request for panel decision should be given priority consideration, consistent with Section V, below.

  • (6) If a case issued by a Senior Judge is subject to a motion by the parties for reconsideration or panel consideration, the Chief Judge shall determine whether the Senior Judge is available to consider the motion and serve on any resultant panel. See Policy for the Recall of Senior Judges.

(b) Subsequent Appeals.


  • (1) Of Single-Judge Remands.


    • (A) In the interests of judicial efficiency, for any subsequent appeal of a Board decision on a matter previously remanded by a single Judge, CLS prepares an evaluation of the matter and refers it to the author Judge of the remanded decision with a notation that the case is related to one that was previously before the Judge. If the author Judge is not available, the case is assigned according to the normal process, as described in Section I(a)(3), above.

    • (B) The author Judge promptly reviews any such case and if the author Judge determines that the new appeal involves substantially the same issue(s) raised in the prior appeal, the Judge retains the case for appropriate disposition and directs the Clerk to assign the matter to that Judge. If the author Judge determines that the new appeal involves new issues, the Judge returns the case for assignment to a Judge (potentially including that Judge) according to the normal process, as described in Section I(a)(3), above.
  • (2) Of Panel-Ordered Remands.


    • (A) In the interests of judicial efficiency, for any subsequent appeal of a Board decision on a matter previously remanded by panel, CLS prepares an evaluation of the matter and refers it to the author Judge of the panel, if still serving in regular active status, with a notation that the case is related to one that was previously before a panel that included that Judge. If the author Judge is not available, the appeal is referred to another available member of the panel serving on regular active status, based on seniority. If none of the original panel Judges is available, the appeal is assigned according to the normal process, as described in Section I(a)(3), above.

    • (B) The author Judge (or assigned panel member) promptly reviews any such case and if the Judge determines that the new appeal involves substantially the same issue(s) raised in the prior appeal that was remanded by a panel, the Judge consults with the available members of the prior panel and determines whether the interests of judicial efficiency warrant consideration by the same panel. The Judge then directs the Clerk as to the appropriate assignment of the case. If the author Judge (or assigned panel member) determines that the new appeal does not involve substantially the same issue(s) raised in the prior appeal, the author Judge returns the case for assignment to a Judge (potentially including that Judge) according to the normal process, as described in Section I(a)(3), above.
    Back