United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

THOMAS RODENHIZER, Claimant

DEBORAH RODENHIZER, Movant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

2023-1377 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 19-4740, Judge Joseph L. Falvey, Jr. ______________________

Decided: December 30, 2024 ______________________

KENNETH M. CARPENTER, Carpenter Chartered, Tope- ka, KS, argued for movant-appellant. Also represented by KENNETH DOJAQUEZ.

BRENDAN DAVID JORDAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH MARIE Case: 23-1377 Document: 49 Page: 2 Filed: 12/30/2024

2 RODENHIZER v. MCDONOUGH

HOSFORD, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; Y. KEN LEE, SAMANTHA ANN SYVERSON, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. ______________________ Before DYK, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. DYK, Circuit Judge. Thomas Rodenhizer, a United States Army veteran, sought an earlier effective date for veteran benefits. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denied an earlier effective date. Mr. Rodenhizer appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). Mr. Rodenhizer died while his appeal was pend- ing. Mr. Rodenhizer’s mother, Deborah Rodenhizer, moved to be substituted in her son’s place. The Veterans Court denied the motion to substitute, vacated the Board’s decision, and dismissed Mr. Rodenhizer’s appeal, concluding that Ms. Rodenhizer had not established her right to the benefits. We vacate and remand with instruc- tions to hold the appeal and motion to substitute in abey- ance pending the outcome of proceedings before the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) to determine Ms. Rodenhizer’s eligibility. BACKGROUND This case raises the question of the procedures to be followed when a veteran dies while his or her case is pending in the Veterans Court and a successor seeks to claim accrued benefits. In March 2019, the Board award- ed Mr. Rodenhizer an effective date of June 8, 2016, for a total disability rating based on individual unemployabil- ity. Mr. Rodenhizer appealed the Board’s decision to the Veterans Court, arguing that he was entitled to an earlier effective date. Mr. Rodenhizer died in September 2020 while the appeal was pending before the Veterans Court. As discussed in detail below, substitution for a de- ceased party in the Veterans Court is governed by the Case: 23-1377 Document: 49 Page: 3 Filed: 12/30/2024

RODENHIZER v. MCDONOUGH 3

Veterans Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure Rule 43. Eligibility to claim accrued benefits upon a veteran’s death is governed by 38 U.S.C. § 5121. The Veterans Court ordered Mr. Rodenhizer’s counsel to show cause why the Board’s effective date decision should not be vacated, and Mr. Rodenhizer’s appeal dismissed, because Mr. Rodenhizer had died. Mr. Rodenhizer’s counsel explained that Ms. Rodenhizer, Mr. Rodenhizer’s mother, had sought to be substituted in Mr. Rodenhizer’s place by filing a completed VA Form 21P-0847, entitled “Request for Substitution of Claimant Upon Death of Claimant,” with the VA. In May 2021, the Veterans Court ordered that Ms. Rodenhizer file a formal substitution motion with the Veterans Court. The Veterans Court also ordered the