This is a per curiam order on the Secretary’s motion for reconsideration. The Court explained that it had previously issued an opinion on January 14, 1993 reversing and remanding the Board’s March 1, 1991 decision. The Secretary argued that the Court had erred in applying 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3) and 3.309(a) to suggest presumptive service connection could be established for polycythemia rubra vera. The Court granted reconsideration, denied the stay request, denied en banc review as moot, vacated the January 14, 1993 opinion, and replaced it with the opinion filed on April 15, 1993.

An earlier precedential opinion may be vacated on reconsideration and replaced by a new controlling opinion; the vacated opinion has no continuing precedential effect.

Do not rely on a vacated Veterans Court opinion as controlling authority. When the Court grants reconsideration and substitutes a new opinion, the replacement opinion governs.

This order is important primarily for citation accuracy and precedent tracking. It alerts advocates that the earlier January 14, 1993 opinion in this case was vacated, so any argument or brief relying on that opinion must instead use the replacement decision.

Relying on a vacated opinion as if it remained binding authority.

An advocate cites the January 14, 1993 Ennis opinion to argue presumptive service connection, but opposing counsel points out that the opinion was vacated on reconsideration. The correct approach is to cite the April 15, 1993 replacement opinion instead.

Use this case to verify procedural history and confirm whether an opinion has been vacated or superseded before citing it as authority.

Ennis v. Brown