In Rodenhizer v. McDonough, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), which had denied a substitution motion and dismissed an appeal after the death of the veteran, Thomas Rodenhizer. The case clarified that when factual questions exist regarding a movant’s eligibility for accrued benefits, the Veterans Court must stay the substitution motion until the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) makes a determination.
Thomas Rodenhizer, a U.S. Army veteran, appealed a Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision assigning him a June 2016 effective date for total disability based on individual unemployability. While the appeal was pending, Mr. Rodenhizer passed away in September 2020. His mother, Deborah Rodenhizer, moved to substitute as the appellant, asserting eligibility for accrued benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 5121(a)(6) as the person who bore the cost of her son’s burial.
The VA had not yet ruled on Ms. Rodenhizer’s eligibility when the Veterans Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that she filed a timely application for accrued benefits within one year of the veteran’s death, as required under 38 U.S.C. § 5121(c). The Veterans Court concluded it could not make factual determinations regarding eligibility and vacated the underlying Board decision.
The Federal Circuit held that the Veterans Court erred by denying substitution and dismissing the appeal before the VA completed its factual determination. The court emphasized:
Substitution is governed by Veterans Court Rule 43, which permits an "appropriate person" to continue an appeal upon a veteran’s death.
Eligibility under 38 U.S.C. § 5121(a) and compliance with the timing requirement in § 5121(c) are prerequisites for substitution.
When these eligibility questions involve factual disputes and the Secretary has not conceded them, the Veterans Court must stay the case pending the VA’s decision.
The court found that Ms. Rodenhizer had filed a substitution request (VA Form 21P-0847) and that her eligibility was the subject of a parallel VA proceeding. The Veterans Court should have held the matter in abeyance rather than dismissing the appeal.
The Federal Circuit vacated the Veterans Court’s dismissal and instructed it to stay further proceedings until the VA completed its review of Ms. Rodenhizer’s eligibility. If she is deemed eligible, she may be substituted to continue her son’s appeal.
The court’s ruling aims to prevent unnecessary restarting of proceedings when a proper substitute can continue a veteran’s pending claim. The decision underscores that efficiency and fairness are best served by staying appeals pending VA determinations on accrued benefit claims.
Navigating VA substitution and accrued benefit procedures can be complex after a veteran’s death. Our team at Whitcomb, Selinsky, PC assists families in asserting their rights, managing VA claims, and ensuring eligibility determinations are properly handled before dismissal of pending appeals.