WPC  
      7     ^|uOw2RՕ-0FxʏLNuIݞkBZQJW>W١7iѭ;&^&FkaYǈggPdЯ2fWS!׈j33kwq7F_	w(ξHQ @d1Y7&W+)l"I(gV9_3B${<p9˂"ɆM_LA\a<C|GK-)]#ԻL&K]Ņ+,zaV/˦+%刦y;[b8	uFhf`BH8,ڄZ?KmX=KкnhԟWerw$K{j~- G>ܜ02O0%Y3>"1B5@X%hwJo{jo@xP3'@ی            #        U   N     	%      U  0   (   [           	         	               w   @   '  4      g        {   	                 	         	         	         	         H P   L a s e r J e t   5 P                                               HPPCL5MS     , ,,,,, 0                                                                                                                                                             nLF( uH  	   Z  6 T i m e s   N e w   R o m a n   R e g u l a r           X    (                    $        
         H   ؿ    ȿ                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
               
 '           P I L K E A    0    P I L K E A   
 .      
       
       
       
                  E     (('^        3| x        ȿ         ȿ    ȿ        H  
    !      =    
       X       d                 d= =      X   X       d                 d=  %     %     7      X  X       d                  d 7     
    ?T       @      UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSFORVETERANSCLAIMS   	       @    ""%  No.97875   	 x   @    ;;  MitchellScates,Jr.,Appellant,   	 P	        @ @  M  v.   	 (x   @ @  E  HershelW.Gober,   	  P	   @ @  :  ActingSecretaryofVeteransAffairs,Appellee.   	 <	
   KennethB.Mason,Jr.,Intervenor.   	        @        OnIntervenor'sMotionforReviewEnBanc    (ArguedJune7,2000@    *           p Decided 񀀀August14,2000%     񀀀)   	 L         @    *                MitchellScates,prose.   	 L        R.RandallCampbell,withwhomRobertE.Coy,ActingGeneralCounsel;andRonGarvin,   	 $   AssistantGeneralCounsel,allofWashington,D.C.,wereonthebrief,fortheappellee.   	         KennethM.Carpenter,ofTopeka,Kansas,wasonthebriefforKennethB.Mason,Jr.,as   	    intervenor.     JamesC.McKay,ofWashington,D.C.,wasonthebriefasamicuscuriaefortheappellant.   	 \         BeforeNEBEKER,ChiefJudge,andKRAMER,FARLEY,HOLDAWAY,IVERS,   	 4"         STEINBERG,andGREENE,Judges.   	  #p!                                                               NEBEKER,ChiefJudge:Thisappealinvolvesadisputebetweentheappellant,veteran   	 $H #   MitchellScates,andtheintervenorandappellant'sformerattorney,KennethMason,overa20%contingentfeeagreement.Mr.ScatesappealsanApril30,1997,BoardofVeterans'Appeals(BoardorBVA)decisionwhichdeterminedthatMr.MasonwaseligibleforthepaymentofattorneyfeeswithheldbytheSecretaryfrompastduebenefits,purportedlypursuantto38U.S.C.5904(d)(3),forlegalservicesrenderedbyMr.MasononbehalfofMr.Scates.InOctober1999,apanelofthisCourtreversedtheBoarddecision;theCourtheldthatthefeeagreementhadbeenabrogatedupon    D-(/   theterminationoftheattorneyclientrelationshipin1994andthatnorighttothe20%contingentfeesurvived.
    
 
    
      TheintervenorsoughtandwasgrantedreviewbythefullCourt.Scatesv.West,13   	 b   Vet.App.304(2000)(enbancorder),withdrawing13Vet.App.98(1999).Theintervenorthenfiled   	    amotiontodismissthisappealbecause,heargued,theBoard,andthereforethisCourt,lackedjurisdictiontodecidethathewaseligibletoreceivethewithheldfee.Sinceitisappropriatetoraisethisjurisdictionalissueatanytimeduringthependencyoftheappeal,weentertainit,agreethattheBoardlackedjurisdictioninthismatter,andwillvacatetheBoarddecision,withdirections.SeeIn   	 o	   theMatteroftheFeeAgreementofWick,40F.3d367,370(Fed.Cir.1994).   	 x
   @    )  I.     AreviewoftherecordonappealrevealsthatinApril1996,aVAregionaloffice(RO)"processedanawardintheamount[of$154,119.00]"onbehalfoftheappellant.Record(R.)at98.Pursuanttothecontingentfeeagreementonfile,theRO"withheld$30,823.00from[theappellant's]retroactivebenefitspendingadecisionbytheBoardofVeteransAppealsontheissueofyour   	    attorney'sentitlementtodirectpaymentoutofthepastdueamount."Id.(emphasisadded).TheRO   	 7   furtherinformedtheappellantthat"therecordsinthiscase[were]beingtransferredtotheBoardofVeteransAppealsforadeterminationofeligibilityforpaymentofattorneyfeesfromanypastdue   	 "   benefits."R.at99(emphasisadded).InApril1997,theBoarddeterminedthattheintervenorwas"eligibleforpaymentofattorneyfeesfrompastduebenefits."R.at2(emphasisadded).The   	 K&   appellanthaddischargedhimnearlytwoyearsbeforetheROgrantedthelongdisputedbenefitswithfullretroactivity,andthefeeagreementissilentonpaymentoffeesuponterminationoftheattorneyclientrelationship.Thegravamenoftheintervenor'sargumentistwofold:First,theSecretaryisrequiredbystatutetodecidewhethertoawardawithheldcontingencyfeepriortoanyreviewbytheBoard,and,second,theBoard,aspartofitsoriginaljurisdiction,isauthorizedtodecideonlythereasonablenessofthefee,noteligibilitytoreceiveit.     Title38oftheUnitedStatesCodegenerallycontemplatesaprogressionofclaimsadjudicationfromtheinitialdecisionattheagencyoforiginaljurisdiction,usuallyanRO,toreviewbytheBoardactingasaquasiappellatebody.See38U.S.C.511(a),7104(a);38C.F.R.19.9,   	 l*%8   20.1104(1999).Specifically,section511(a)providesinpertinentpart:   	 +':           8     TheSecretaryshalldecideallquestionsoflawandfactnecessarytoadecisionbytheSecretaryunderalawthataffectstheprovisionofbenefitsbytheSecretarytoveteransorthedependentsorsurvivorsofveterans.       E           38U.S.C.511(a).Inturn,theBoard'sgeneraljurisdictionislimitedtothereviewof"[a]llquestionsinamatterwhichundersection511(a)of[title38,U.S.Code
,
]issubjecttoadecisionby   	 .	~   theSecretary."38U.S.C.7104.Asadeparturefromthisnormalclaimadjudicationprocess,theBoardisspecificallyprovidedwithoriginaljurisdictionastofeeagreements,to"review"suasponteorattherequestofeitherpartyafeeagreementfiledwiththeBoard,andit"mayorderareductioninthefeecalledforintheagreementiftheBoardfindsthatthefeeisexcessiveorunreasonable."38U.S.C.5904(c)(2).̛̜@    )  II.     InCoxv.West,149F.3d1360,1365(Fed.Cir.1998),theUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals   	 F   fortheFederalCircuit(FederalCircuit)consideredanattorney'sclaimforentitlementtoafeeϜwithheldundersection5904(d)(i.e.,adirectpaymentcase).ImplicitlyacknowledgingtheadjudicationprogressionattheagencylevelinthecontextofaclaimfordirectpaymentofacontingencyfeebytheSecretary,theFederalCircuitconcludedthattheattorney'sclaim"requirestheSecretarytomakeadecision'underalawthataffectstheprovisionofbenefitsbytheSecretarytoveterans.'"Id.(quoting38U.S.C.511(a)).TheFederalCircuitalsonotedthatsection   	 \"   5904(c)(2)providedtheBoardonlytheauthoritytoreviewfor"reasonableness."Id.at1364.The   	 e$   authoritytoreviewfeeagreementsfor"eligibility"doesnotappearinthestatute(cf.NormanJ.   	 &   Singer,SutherlandStatutoryConstruction47.23(5thed.1992)(discussingthemaxim   	  g(   "expressiouniusestexclusionalterius"));however,underourcaselaw,itappearsthateligibilityto   	 p!*   chargeafeeinnondirectpaymentcasesmaybereviewedbytheBVAinthefirst    ?T     H 
   
     ?T     H 
   
 instanceasacomponentofitssection5904(c)(2)authoritytoreviewforreasonableness(seeIn    ?T     H 
   
     ?T     H 
   
 reFeeAgreement   	 "$r.   ofStanley,10Vet.App.104(1997)).   	 {% 0       ?T      H  
   
     ?T     H 
   
      Intheinstantappeal,whichinvolvesadirectpaymentcontingencyfeeagreement,theagencyoforiginaljurisdictionnevermadeadecisionconcerningtheawardofthewithheldattorneyfees    ?T     H 
   
 totheintervenorundersection511(a).Rather,theROforwardedthemattertotheBoardfora"determinationofeligibility."R.at99.TheBoard,whichhasthelimitedoriginaljurisdictiontoreviewfeeagreementsforreasonablenessorexcessiveness,concludedthattheintervenorwas   	 8,':      ?T     H 
   
 "eligibleforpaymentofattorneyfeesfrompastduebenefits,"and,quotingfromVAGen.Coun.   	       МPrec.2295(Sept.28,1995),theBoardconcludedthat"VAmaydirectlypay[the]attorneyfees."πR.at2,9.BecausewereadCox󛀜asholdingthattheBoarddoesnothaveoriginaljurisdictionto   	 b   Мconsiderundersection5904(c)(2)anyissuesregardingentitlementtoattorneyfeesindirectpaymentcases,weholdthatallissuesinvolvingentitlementoreligibilityforattorneyfeesunderdirectpaymentcontingencyfeeagreements,ascontrastedwiththeissuesofreasonablenessandexcessiveness,mustfirstbeaddressedbytheROinaccordancewiththenormaladjudicationproceduresandcannotbethesubjectofsuasponteorotheroriginal(onmotion)BVAreview.See   	 o	   Cox,supra;cf.InreFeeAgreementofStanley,10Vet.App.104,108(1997)(incontextofnon   	 x
   directpaymentagreementCourtaffirmedBVA'sdecisionthatattorneywasineligibleforfeesfromclientbecausetherewasnofinalBVAdecision).     ThematterofattorneyfeesremainspendingbeforetheSecretarybyvirtueofthefeeagreementfiledinthiscase.Afternoticetotheappellantandintervenor,andanopportunitytobeheard,thatclaimshouldbedecidedbytheRO.TheaggrievedpartymaythenfileaNoticeofDisagreementandpursueanappealtotheBoardandthisCourtifsodesired.SeeCox,149F.2dat   	    М1362;cf.Hanlinv.UnitedStates,__F.3d.__,__,No.995062,slipop.at3(Fed.Cir.June2,2000)   	 7   (alternatively,under28U.S.C.1491(a)(1),CourtofFederalClaimshasjurisdictiontoconsiderϜ"anonfrivolousclaimallegingtheexistenceofacontract"by"anattorneyseekingrelieffornonpaymentoffeesbytheVA.").OurdecisiontodaydoesnotdecidethequestionoftheeffectoftheterminationoftheattorneyclientrelationshipbetweenMr.MasonandMr.Scatesandleavesthatquestionfordecisionattheinitialadministrativelevel.NeitherdoestheCourtexpressanyviewastothereasonablenessorexcessivenessofthefeecalledforinthisagreementsincethefactssurroundingsuchissuesmustbedevelopedintheadjudicationofthependingclaim.TheBoard'sdecisionisVACATEDforwantoforiginaljurisdictiontodecideeligibilityfordirectpaymentofawithheldcontingencyfeeunder5904(d),andthematteris %     REMANDEDtotheBoardwithdirectionstodismissthematterofdirectpaymentfeeeligibilityasreferredtotheBoardbytheRO.  %      %     %     SeeIntheMatteroftheFeeAgreementofWick,supra.    	 x-(:   Л   	 x-(:   Л        %    M-   