Citation Nr: A25035172 Decision Date: 04/16/25 Archive Date: 04/16/25 DOCKET NO. 231219-403308 DATE: April 16, 2025 ORDER The appeal regarding eligibility to the direct payment of fees from past due benefits awarded in a November 2023 rating decision granting earlier effective dates for the service connection of scars on the face and neck is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In June 2023, attorney N.W. submitted a valid Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 21-22a, appointing him as the Veteran's VA representative, no other attorneys were listed therein; in December 2023 the appellant, attorney J.W., signed and submitted a VA Form 10182 Board Appeal disputing the payment of fees from the past due benefits awarded in a November 2023 rating decision. 2. In March 2025 written correspondence, prior to the promulgation of a decision in this case and based upon an updated December 2023 Fee Decision granting N.W. direct payment of 20 percent of fees from the past due benefits awarded in a November 2023 rating decision, attorney N.W. expressed his desire to withdraw attorney J.W.'s December 2023 appeal of eligibility to fees from the past due benefits awarded in the November 2023 rating decision. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for the dismissal of the present appeal have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from November 1963 to November 1965; the appellant J.W. is an attorney working for the same firm as the Veteran's former representative, N.W. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of the eligibility to attorney fees from the past due benefits awarded in a November 2023 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) rating decision granting an earlier effective date for the service connection of facial and neck scars. As this was an initial fee determination, the contested claims procedures of the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) apply. The Board also takes judicial notice of an AOJ Fee Decision and subsequent payment issued after receipt of the appellant's VA Form 10182 as it directly affects the current appeal. See Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97, 103 (2012). At the outset, the Board notes that the rating decision at dispute was issued by the AOJ in October 2023, but that the notification letter was mailed to the Veteran and his representative in November 2023. For simplicity, the Board has referred to it as a November 2023 rating decision throughout this document. In this case the appellant, attorney J.W., disputes the payment of attorney fees from the past due benefits awarded in the November 2023 rating decision granting earlier effective dates for service connection of scars on the face and neck. Internal VA documents indicate this decision resulted in approximately $39,000 in past due benefits being awarded. Notably, in the aftermath of the decision the AOJ failed to issue a customary Fee Decision detailing whether the Veteran's representative was eligible for the direct payment of fees from these past due benefits. By way of history, in June 2023 attorney N.W. submitted a valid VA Form 21-22a appointing him as the Veteran's representative before VA, as well as a duly signed fee agreement stipulating the direct payment of 20 percent of past due benefits awarded. However, after the issuance of the November 2023 decision without the issuance of a corresponding Fee Decision, attorney J.W., a member of the same law firm as attorney N.W., signed and submitted a VA Form 10182 challenging the lack of a Fee Decision delineating the Veteran's representative's eligibility to fees. In order to have standing to file an appeal, a claimant must demonstrate that he or she has been injured and has a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. See Redding v. West, 13 Vet. App. 512, 514 (2000). In other words, a person must be adversely affected by a decision in order to file an appeal as to that decision. A Veteran may appoint an attorney to represent him, and that attorney may charge fees for that representation. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 14.627, 14.628, 14.629, 14.636(b), (g). Although other attorneys at the same law firm may assist in the representation of the Veteran, they are not the Veteran's appointed attorney. See 38 C.F.R. § 14.629(c)(2). Only the Veteran's duly appointed attorney can charge fees for the representation. See 38 C.F.R. § 14.636(g). Although J.W.'s VA Form 10182 appeal has been docketed at the Board, as with any appellate system, the Board's mere administrative docketing of a claim does not demonstrate acceptance or the waiver of standing requirements. See Martin v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d. 1338, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (describing the docketing of an appeal by the Board as a ministerial task). As N.W. was the only attorney validly appointed as the Veteran's representative, attorney J.W. did not have standing to file an appeal regarding the award of fees. However, the Board observes that the administrative error giving rise to the present dispute, the omission of a Fee Decision with respect to the November 2023 rating decision, has thankfully been corrected. Shortly after receipt of attorney J.W.'s VA Form 10182, the AOJ issued a December 2023 Fee Decision finding that attorney N.W. had met the criteria for the direct payment of fees in the amount of 20 percent of past due benefits awarded in the November 2023 rating decision. Internal VA records indicate that this amount, approximately $7,800, was subsequently disbursed to attorney N.W. in February 2024. Finally, in March 2025 VA received a letter from attorney N.W. noting these developments and stating that he wished to withdraw the December 2019 VA Form 10182 giving rise to the current appeal regarding fees from the November 2023 rating decision. However, as discussed above, while the Veteran's representative was N.W., the VA Form 10182 was filed by attorney J.W. The attorney bringing the current appeal, J.W., did not have standing to appeal the assignment of fees from past due benefits awarded in the November 2023 rating decision. Similarly, attorney N.W., who possessed standing to initiate the appeal but did not file the VA Form 10182, did not have standing to withdraw this appeal because it was submitted by attorney J.W. In short, there was neither a valid appeal of the issue of fees from the November 2023 rating decision, nor was there a valid withdrawal of the appeal. However, the underlying issue of fees has been rendered moot by the AOJ issuance of a December 2023 Fee Decision and payment of in full of the fees due to attorney N.W. The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. As the underlying dispute has been resolved and there remain no allegations of error of law or fact for appellate consideration, the present appeal is dismissed as a matter of law. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Schumacher, Kyle C. The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.