A joint motion for remand (JMR) is a request by an appellant and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) to send specified issues back to the Board for further action. If the Court grants it, the order and the agreed terms guide what must happen next.
A remand can give a veteran another opportunity for a legally adequate decision. It does not automatically establish service connection, increase a rating, or award back pay. The value of a proposed JMR depends on what it requires VA to correct and which issues remain open.
How does a JMR arise during a CAVC appeal?
The appeal begins with a Notice of Appeal from an appealable Board decision. The ordinary filing period is 120 days after issuance of notice; see our CAVC deadline guide. A JMR is part of an existing Court case, not a form that replaces a timely Notice of Appeal.
The appellant’s attorney reviews the Board decision and Record Before the Agency. Counsel identifies potential errors, connects them to the evidence and governing law, and discusses possible resolution with the Secretary’s attorney. The lawyers may negotiate before or after a staff conference or during briefing.
Under Rule 33, the Court may order a staff conference to narrow issues and explore resolution. The parties’ representatives must consult their clients about settlement. A conference is not a trial, and the Court’s staff attorney does not represent either side.
Why might VA agree to a remand?
The Secretary’s counsel may conclude that a Board decision needs correction or that agreed further proceedings are appropriate. Potential issues include an inadequate explanation, failure to address material favorable evidence, application of an incorrect legal standard, or reliance on an examination that did not adequately address the relevant question.
For example, suppose the Board denies a claim without explaining how it evaluated a favorable medical opinion. A proposed JMR might identify that omission and require the Board to address the opinion under the proper standard. It would not necessarily require the Board to accept that opinion or award benefits.
The Court’s guidance for Rule 33 conferences encourages clear identification of the affected claims, relevant facts, and supporting documents. It also recognizes that a JMR may include guidance on an issue where the Secretary does not concede error. An agreement to remand therefore does not mean VA admitted every argument raised in the appeal.
What is the difference between a JMR and a JMPR?
A joint motion for partial remand (JMPR) concerns part of the appealed decision. The motion may seek remand of some issues and dismissal of the appeal concerning others. Read the entire proposed disposition, not just the paragraph describing the favorable action.
Before agreeing, the client and attorney should understand:
- Which denied issues will return to the Board.
- Which portions of the Board decision the Court is being asked to vacate.
- Whether any issue will be dismissed, abandoned, or left undisturbed.
- What specific error or further action the motion identifies.
- Whether the agreement includes a waiver of further judicial review or a request for early mandate.
Those choices can affect what remains available later. A remand addressing one disability should not be mistaken for a resolution of every claim in a multi-issue Board decision.
What are the advantages and tradeoffs?
A well-supported agreement may resolve the Court phase without completing all briefing and waiting for a contested decision. It can focus the next VA adjudication on an identified problem. That can be useful when the record supports correction but does not support an immediate judicial award.
The tradeoff is that the matter returns to VA. Additional development or a new Board decision may take time, and the Board may again deny benefits after addressing the error. A JMR ordinarily does not produce a precedential opinion resolving the legal question for other veterans.
Sometimes counsel may recommend continuing litigation because the proposed terms are too narrow or a different remedy is appropriate. The Court has authority to affirm, modify, reverse, or remand under 38 U.S.C. § 7252. The appropriate request depends on the record, the standard of review, and the relief the law permits.
Who approves the agreement?
The lawyers negotiate and submit the joint motion, with the client’s authority. The Court must act on the request. Until the Court grants it, the proposed agreement is not a remand order. Other Court deadlines remain in effect unless an applicable rule or order changes them.
The wording matters. A useful motion explains the problem precisely enough that the parties can later assess whether VA carried out the required action. Broad assurances that VA will “take another look” may leave a veteran uncertain about what was actually obtained.
What happens after the Court grants a JMR?
First, review the Court’s order and the mandate provisions. Under current Rule 41(c), mandate generally occurs 60 days after an order granting a joint motion, subject to the listed exceptions. The parties may agree in writing to waive further Court and Federal Circuit review and request earlier mandate, or the Court may direct otherwise. Do not assume every JMR order immediately becomes mandate.
When the matter returns to VA, the Board must act consistently with the Court’s order. Depending on its terms, the Board may need a new explanation, further development, or another adjudication. It may remand to the agency of original jurisdiction when appropriate. Any opportunity to submit evidence or argument must be evaluated under the applicable review system, governing law, and notices.
38 U.S.C. § 7112(a) requires expeditious treatment by the Board of Court-remanded claims. That requirement does not promise a particular completion date. Keep copies of new notices and respond to applicable deadlines.
If the Board issues another unfavorable final decision, that decision may carry a new opportunity for Court review. Counsel should compare the new decision with the remand instructions and determine the applicable filing deadline.
Does the same lawyer represent me after remand?
Check the representation agreement. Court representation does not automatically include representation before the Board or a regional office. Ricks Law focuses on CAVC litigation; the scope of any engagement is confirmed in writing. Discuss the handoff and any need for a VA-stage representative before the Court case ends.
Common JMR questions
Is a JMR a win?
It may be a meaningful procedural result because it requires further action on an adverse decision. It is not the same as winning the underlying benefits claim. Review the specific terms and remaining issues.
Will I receive back pay immediately?
A remand alone does not award back pay. Any later award depends on entitlement, the rating, the effective date, and other applicable rules.
How are attorney fees handled?
Eligible prevailing parties may seek fees from the government under the Equal Access to Justice Act. An EAJA fee award is separate from a benefits award and depends on statutory requirements. Read the firm’s fee explanation and your written agreement.
Discuss your Board decision with a CAVC attorney
Mo Ricks has more than a decade of veterans-law experience and has handled more than 300 CAVC appeals, including government work. His prior attorney roles at the Board and VA’s Office of General Counsel inform his review of Board decisions and proposed remand terms. Experience does not guarantee that VA will agree to a remand or that benefits will be awarded.
Learn about CAVC representation, then request a free Board decision review or call 1-888-677-7755. Contacting the firm does not extend a deadline or establish representation.
Examples of issues raised in joint-motion practice
Ricks Law’s filings have addressed failures to discuss favorable evidence, questions about medical-opinion adequacy, missing treatment records, and overlooked work limitations. Each motion identifies the affected issues and the proposed action on remand. Some negotiated terms ask the Board to address an issue without a concession of error on that point.
Read the focused guides: Ignored evidence · Inadequate C&P exams · Missing records · TDIU denials.
