Knight v. DVA ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Case: 22-1169     Document: 28     Page: 1    Filed: 05/31/2022
    NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    JESSE KNIGHT,
    Petitioner
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
    Respondent
    ______________________
    2022-1169
    ______________________
    Petition for review of an arbitrator’s decision in No.
    201211-02152 by Dennis A. Kist.
    ______________________
    ON MOTION
    ______________________
    Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
    ORDER
    The Department of Veterans Affairs moves to waive
    the requirements of Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and remand
    to allow the arbitrator to reevaluate the determination con-
    cerning the standard of proof and the reasonableness of the
    choice of penalty in light of this court’s decisions in Rodri-
    guez v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 
    8 F.4th 1290
     (Fed.
    Case: 22-1169    Document: 28     Page: 2   Filed: 05/31/2022
    2                                            KNIGHT   v. DVA
    Cir. 2021), and Connor v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
    
    8 F.4th 1319
     (Fed. Cir. 2021), which Jesse Knight had
    raised as issues in post-arbitration briefing. Mr. Knight,
    through counsel, states that remand is acceptable “so long
    as there was no provision directing petitioner to pay the
    costs of the appeal i.e. attorney fees and taxable costs.”
    ECF No. 26 at 2.
    It is within this court’s discretion to remand to allow
    the arbitrator to reconsider his previous position. See SKF
    USA Inc. v. United States, 
    254 F.3d 1022
    , 1029 (Fed. Cir.
    2001). We agree that remand is proper here and could pre-
    serve party and judicial resources, and therefore we grant
    the Department’s motion. We further determine that costs
    should be awarded to Mr. Knight, see Fed. R. App. P. 39;
    Fed. Cir. R. 39, but he has not moved for attorney fees and
    this order does not address such a potential claim.
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) The Department’s motion is granted. The case is
    remanded to the arbitrator for further proceedings con-
    sistent with the motion and this order.
    (2) Costs to petitioner.
    FOR THE COURT
    May 31, 2022                      /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
    Date                           Peter R. Marksteiner
    Clerk of Court
    ISSUED AS A MANDATE: May 31, 2022
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-1169

Filed Date: 5/31/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/31/2022