of section 1318 in Green and remanded the matter. Carpenter, 11 Vet.App. at 145-47. The Court’s interpretation in Green and Carpenter, both supra, of the “entitled to receive” language in section 1318(b) as allowing for a “hypothetically ... entitled to receive” theory established the existence of a substantive right because that interpretation recognized a group of claimants eligible for section 1318 DIC and that group was larger than the group VA had recognized. Prior to the Board’s 1998 initial adjudication of the appellant’s claim (and at least up until the time of the 2000 revision to § 3.22), this Court’s interpretation of section 1318(b) as allowing that theory was binding on VA in the adjudication of section 1318 DIC claims. See Tobler v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 8, 14 (1991) (<HOLDING>); see also NOVA I, 260 F.3d at 1374 n. 8
holding that decision of this court unless or until overturned by this court en banc the  federal circuit or the supreme court is a decision of the court on the date it is issued any rulings interpretations or conclusions of law contained in such a decision are authoritative and binding as of the date the decision is issued and are to be considered and when applicable are to be followed by va agencies of original jurisdiction the board and the secretary in adjudicating and resolving claims holding that the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and it must be followed by the trial court on remand holding that we must follow a prior binding precedent unless and until it is overruled by this court en banc or by the supreme court quotation marks omitted holding that in the absence of an intervening supreme court decision only the en banc court may overrule a decision by a threejudge panel holding that circuit court decisions bind circuit unless and until overturned by the court en banc or by higher authority