The claimant’s attorney sought direct payment of fees from past-due benefits awarded to a veteran after a successful remand and later grant of TDIU benefits. The regional office denied the direct-fee request and informed the parties that the appeal period was 60 days because the matter was being treated as a simultaneously contested claim. The attorney filed a notice of disagreement 90 days later, and the Board and Veterans Court held it untimely. On appeal, the Federal Circuit considered whether the attorney-fee dispute fell under the 60-day contested-claim appeal rule or the ordinary one-year NOD period. The court held that the statute was ambiguous and that VA’s interpretation in 38 C.F.R. § 20.3(p), as reflected in the Manual, permissibly treated direct-fee disputes as simultaneously contested claims. The court therefore affirmed the Veterans Court and held that the NOD was untimely.

When VA denies an attorney’s direct-fee request under 38 U.S.C. § 5904(d), the dispute is a simultaneously contested claim under 38 U.S.C. § 7105A, and the NOD must be filed within 60 days of notice of the adverse action.

Attorney-fee appeals involving direct payment from past-due benefits have a much shorter filing deadline than ordinary benefit appeals. Missing the 60-day NOD period can end appellate review even if the attorney would otherwise have had one year under § 7105.

The decision clarifies the appeal deadline for a recurring attorney-fee dispute and confirms that VA’s contested-claim procedures apply to direct-fee denials. It is especially important for practitioners handling fee withholding and direct-payment issues because the timing rule is jurisdictionally consequential in practice.

Assuming the ordinary one-year NOD deadline applies to a direct-fee denial instead of the 60-day contested-claim deadline.

An attorney receives a VA decision denying direct payment of fees from a veteran’s past-due award. If the attorney waits 90 days to file an NOD, the appeal is untimely because the matter is a simultaneously contested claim subject to the 60-day deadline.

Use this case to confirm the applicable filing deadline in attorney-fee disputes and to oppose arguments that direct-fee denials may be appealed under the standard one-year NOD rule. It also supports VA’s use of contested-claim procedures in similar fee-payment disputes.

Cox v. West, Scates v. Principi, Haas v. Peake, Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, Auer v. Robbins