VETERANS (VA) BENEFITS LAW
Robinson v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 976 (May 31, 2018)
HELD: Remand for the Board to address an issue that was raised for the first time on appeal to the Court does not confer prevailing party status on an appellant for EAJA purposes.
Blue v. Wilkie, 30 Vet.App. 61 (May 16, 2018)
HELD: To determine “prevailing party” status where agency error is not explicitly found in the merits decision or conceded by the Secretary, the Court will look to “the substantive discussion in the merits decision, the relief awarded, and whether the caselaw cited in the merits decision would allow such relief in the absence of agency error.”
SUMMARY: CAVC issued a memorandum decision that remanded the veteran’s appeal for additional development and readjudication – specifically directing the Board to obtain VA medical records. In its decision, the Court stated that it found “no error” in the Board’s failure to obtain these records because the veteran had not provided VA with the dates of treatment.
The appellant’s attorney filed an EAJA application and the Secretary challenged it, arguing that he was not a “prevailing party” since the Court expressly found “no error” in the Board’s decision.
The Court first discussed the relevant case law and outlined a three-part test, from Dover v. McDonald, 818 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016), to determine “prevailing party” status for EAJA purposes: “(1) the remand was necessitated by or predicated upon administrative error, (2) the remanding court did not retain jurisdiction, and (3) the language of the remand order clearly called for further agency proceedings, which leaves the possibility of attaining a favorable merits determination.” The only issue here was whether the remand was based on administrative error.
The Court noted that error can be explicit or implicit – and it could be found by the Court or conceded by the Secretary. In this case, the Court expressly found “no error” and the Secretary did not concede error – so the Court looked at “the context of the remand order itself to determine whether the remand was implicitly predicated on agency error.” The Court determined that Mr. Blue was a prevailing party based on “the substantive discussion in the merits decision, the relief awarded, and whether the caselaw cited in the merits decision would allow such relief in the absence of agency error.” The Court determined that the cases cited in the merits decision would not allow for remand in the absence of agency error – and thus concluded that, “under the unique circumstances presented by this case,” the appellant demonstrated that the remand “must have been implicitly predicated on ‘actual or perceived’ agency error.” The Court found the appellant was a prevailing party in this matter.
O’Brien v. Wilkie, 16-2651 (May 4, 2018)
HELD: Legal guardianship does not satisfy VA’s definition of “child” for dependency purposes.
SUMMARY: Veteran sought dependency benefits for his grandson. The veteran was the grandson’s legal guardian, but had not formally adopted him. VA denied dependency benefits for the grandson since he did not meet VA’s definition of a dependent child. Veteran appealed to the Court, arguing that the Court should rely on the “plain meaning” of the word “dependent” – and that because his grandson is “actually dependent” on the veteran, he should be included as a dependent for VA benefits purposes.
The Court disagreed, finding that while the relevant statute and regulation do not define “dependent,” the structure of the statute (38 U.S.C. § 1115) makes it clear that Congress intended to limit “dependents” to “spouses, children, and dependent parents.” The Court also found that Congress expressly limited the definition of “child” to a minor “who is a legitimate child, a legally adopted child, [or] a stepchild who is a member of the veteran’s household,” citing 38 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A).
Burris v. Wilkie, 888 F.3d 1352 (May 2, 2018)
HELD: The CAVC lacks the authority to grant substantive (i.e., monetary) equitable relief.
SUMMARY: In this consolidated case, the sons of two veterans were denied equitable relief for extension of education benefits and reimbursement of education-related expenses. In both cases, the Board held that it did not have the “authority to grant additional benefits on an equitable basis.” The CAVC affirmed the Board’s decisions in both cases, holding that only the Secretary can grant equitable relief in certain circumstances and that the CAVC itself lacked authority to grant such relief.
On appeal to the Federal Circuit, the appellants argued that the CAVC wrongly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to grant equitable relief. The Federal Circuit disagreed, noting that the relevant statute regarding equitable relief, 38 U.S.C. § 503, only allows the Secretary to provide such relief – not the Court. The Federal Circuit further found that the CAVC’s inherent equitable powers do not allow it to grant the equitable relief sought by the appellants in these cases – namely, monetary relief. The Court acknowledged that the CAVC does have the “authority to grant certain forms of non-substantive equitable relief,” such as the authority to certify classes, issue judgment nunc pro tunc, and consider equitable defenses. However, the Court found that those forms of relief were either based on other statutes or were procedural – and were not the same as the monetary relief sought in the present cases. The Court thus held that the CAVC correctly affirmed the Board’s decisions – and correctly determined that it lacked authority to grant this type of equitable relief.
Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Apr. 3, 2018)
HELD: “‘[D]isability’ in [38 U.S.C.] § 1110 refers to the functional impairment of earning capacity, not the underlying cause of said disability” – and “pain is an impairment because it diminishes the body’s ability to function, and that pain need not be diagnosed as connected to a current underlying condition to function as an impairment.”
SUMMARY: This case overrules Sanchez-Benitez v. West, 13 Vet.App. 282, 285 (1999), which held that “pain alone is not a disability for the purpose of VA disability compensation.”
Veteran Melba Saunders served in the U.S. Army from 1987 to 1994. She had no knee problems prior to service. Her service medical records show treatment for “knee pain.” Her separation examination report notes a history of swollen knee.
In 1994, the RO denied her claim for service connection for her knees because she failed to appear for an examination. She did not appeal that decision and it became final. In 2008, she requested reopening, and RO denied service connection for her bilateral knees because it found no evidence of treatment. She appealed and was afforded a C&P examination. The examiner diagnosed “subjective bilateral knee pain” – and concluded that this condition is “at least as likely as not” related to service.
The RO asked the examiner for clarification, noting that “pain” is not a diagnosis. The examiner replied that there is no pathology to render a diagnosis – and that his theory is based on the chronology of events. The RO again denied service connection, and Ms. Saunders appealed to the Board.
The Board denied her claim, stating that “pain alone is not a disability,” and citing Sanchez-Benitez. Ms. Saunders appealed to the Court – and the CAVC affirmed the Board’s denial.
The veteran appealed to Federal Circuit, which overruled Sanchez-Benitez and held that (1) pain can constitute a disability under 38 U.S.C. § 1110; (2) the word “disability” in the statute refers to functional impairment; and (2) pain alone may be a functional impairment.
The Federal Circuit examined the plain language of the statute, noting that 38 U.S.C. § 1110 provides for compensation for “a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty,” but “does not expressly define what constitutes a ‘disability.’” The Court noted that the parties did not dispute that “‘disability’ refers to a functional impairment, rather than the underlying cause of the impairment.” And the Court found that VA’s rating schedule reflected this meaning, noting that the percentages in the rating schedule represent “the average impairment in earning capacity” (citing 38 C.F.R. § 4.1), and that “[t]he basis of disability evaluations is the ability of the body as a whole…to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life including employment” (38 C.F.R. § 4.10).
The Court also considered Congressional intent in drafting VA benefits statutes, finding that “the legislative history of veterans compensation highlights Congress’s consistent intent that there should be a distinction between a disability and its cause” – adding that Congress defined “disability” for Ch. 17 purposes, but not for compensation benefits.
The Court thus held that (1) “‘disability’ in § 1110 refers to the functional impairment of earning capacity, not the underlying cause of said disability”; and (2) “pain is an impairment because it diminishes the body’s ability to function, and that pain need not be diagnosed as connected to a current underlying condition to function as an impairment.”
To support this second part of its holding, the Federal Circuit noted several references to “pain” throughout VA’s rating schedule, citing §§ 4.10, 4.40, 4.45, 4.56, 4.66, 4.67. The Court added that “a physician’s failure to provide a diagnosis for the immediate cause of a veteran’s pain does not indicate that the pain cannot be a functional impairment that affects a veteran’s earning capacity.” To clarify its holding, the Court stated: “We do not hold that a veteran could demonstrate service connection simply by asserting subjective pain—to establish a disability the veteran’s pain must amount to a functional impairment,” adding that “[t]o establish the presence of a disability, a veteran will need to show that her pain reaches the level of a functional impairment of earning capacity.” The Court remanded this matter to the CAVC with instructions to remand to the Board to make specific factual findings in the first instance.
Porriello v. Shulkin, 30 Vet.App. 1 (Mar. 12, 2018)
HELD: A challenge to the Board’s jurisdiction to address a specific allegation of clear and unmistakable error (CUE) must be raised during the appeal period of the relevant decision and cannot later be challenged on the basis of CUE when the appeal period has passed and additional appellate tribunals have already issued final decisions on the matter.
SUMMARY: Mr. Porrriello’s enlistment examination noted no conditions, but he was hospitalized in service for ulcerative colitis, which was determined to have pre-existed service by a 1961 Medical Board. Shortly after separation, he applied for disability benefits and was denied in March and July 1961. He did not appeal, but did file another claim in 1967, which was denied in June 1968. In January 2005, he was finally granted benefits based on new medical evidence. One month later, he submitted a statement, asserting his belief that his claim was “erroneously denied” 40 years ago.
In October 2005, the veteran’s DAV representative characterized the statement as a Notice of Disagreement, but later withdrew the appeal and instead stated that he had argued CUE in the June 1968 decision. There was no mention of the 1961 decision. The RO denied an earlier effective date, but did not mention any specific CUE theory. The veteran appealed, and the RO issued a Statement of the Case stating that he had not provided rationale to support his CUE allegation, but still found no CUE in 1961 and 1968. The veteran filed a VA Form 9. He did not provide any specific theory of CUE, but referred to his entrance examination showing no evidence of a pre-existing condition. The DAV representative then submitted a document identifying the issue as CUE in the 1961 decision. The representative described a specific theory of CUE based on a private doctor’s diagnosis of the pre-service symptoms that was different from the in-service diagnosis of ulcerative colitis.
In May 2008, the Board addressed and rejected this CUE theory. Mr. Porriello appealed to this Court, through counsel, and the Court affirmed the Board’s decision. The Federal Circuit, in turn, affirmed this Court’s decision.
In May 2013, Mr. Porriello filed, through counsel, a request for revision of the 1961 decision on the basis of CUE, arguing that the RO failed to properly apply the presumption of soundness. The RO denied the request, noting that the 2008 Board already considered the application of the presumption of soundness. He appealed to the Board and the Board found that it lacked jurisdiction to address his arguments since the 2008 Board decision had considered the presumption of soundness and “the 1961 and 1968 rating decisions were subsumed by the 2008 Board decision.”
On appeal to the Court, Mr. Porriello argued that the 2008 Board lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider any CUE allegation in the 1961 and 1968 rating decisions because he never raised any specific CUE allegation “at the outset of proceedings leading to that decision.” Because the Board lacked jurisdiction, he further asserted that neither this Court nor the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision.
This Court found that Mr. Porriello’s “jurisdictional arguments might have force and weight” – but that “[t]he time for raising such jurisdictional objections, however, has passed” and that he should have raised these issues during his appeal of the May 2008 Board decision. The Court agreed that the Board erred in determining that the 1961 and 1968 RO decisions were subsumed by the May 2008 Board decision. However, Mr. Porriello’s “failure to raise any jurisdictional challenge on direct appeal means that the decisions of the Board, this Court, and the Federal Circuit are both final and valid.” The Court held that “the doctrine of res judicata precludes raising the same CUE theory again,” and affirmed the Board’s decision.
Zeglin v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 226 (Mar. 6, 2018)
HELD: The Board’s failure to properly discuss VA’s offset policy was harmless error where the record demonstrates that the Board properly applied the policy. Similarly, the Board’s error in finding “that VA does not have the authority to verify that reimbursements it receives from third-party payors are comparable to that which the third party would pay to a non-federal entity” was also harmless error where VA has established policies for ensuring that the rates are comparable.
SUMMARY: Most veterans are required to pay a copayment for each 30-day (or less) supply of medication. For nonservice-connected veterans, VA can seek reimbursement of reasonable charges from their private health insurance – as long as those charges do not exceed the amount that would be paid to a non-federal entity in the same geographic location. Prior to March 2011, VA billed private health insurers a flat rate of $51 for each prescription, regardless of the length of the supply. In March 2011, VA changed its billing practices to more accurately reflect the cost of each medication.
The veteran in this case accrued an outstanding balance of unpaid medication copayments and was denied a waiver of the debt owed to VA. He appealed to the Board, and the Board determined that VA properly charged him an $8 copayment for each 30-day supply of medication. He appealed to the Court.
The Secretary and the Court agreed with Mr. Zeglin that the Board erred in its discussion of VA policy “to offset a veteran’s copayment charge dollar-for-dollar with the amount received from a third[-]party insurance company regardless of whether that amount is less than the amount billed to the third party.” However, because the Board properly applied that policy, the Court determined that the error was harmless.
The Secretary and the Court also agreed with Mr. Zeglin that the Board erred in finding that VA was not authorized to verify that “reimbursements received from third-party payors are comparable” to payments the third party would make to a non-federal entity for the same medication. However, the Court again found that this error was harmless based on information provided by the Secretary showing that VA “has an established third-party payor review process that evaluates reimbursement rates” and that VA will initiate “a formal rate verification” when a third-party insurer reimburses a below-market rate. The Court thus determined that Mr. Zeglin failed to show how he was prejudiced by the Board’s errors, and affirmed the decision.
Bly v. Shulkin, 883 F.3d 1374 (Mar. 2, 2018)
HELD: Unless a Court order specifically prohibits an appeal, an order granting the parties’ motion for remand will become final and “‘not appealable’ 60 days after the entry of the remand order.”
SUMMARY: The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) requires an application for attorney fees to be filed “within 30 days of final judgment in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). Mr. Bly’s attorney filed his EAJA application with the CAVC 31 days after the Court issued its order granting the parties’ joint motion for remand. The Court, relying on three of its own rules of practice and procedure, denied the application because it was one day late. These rules state that (1) an EAJA application must be made “not later than 30 days after the Court’s judgment becomes final”; (2) when the Court remands a case on the parties’ consent, judgment is effective the date of the Court order when that order states that it constitutes the mandate of the Court; (3) mandate is when the Court’s judgment becomes final; and (4) mandate is generally 60 days after judgment, unless it is “part of an order on consent … remanding a case” or “the Court directs otherwise.” See Rules 39(a), 36(b)(1)(B)(i), 41(a) and (b).
The Federal Circuit reversed the CAVC’s decision based on the EAJA’s definition of “final judgment” as a “judgment that is final and not appealable, and includes an order of settlement.” Mr. Bly argued that his EAJA application was timely because the “Court’s judgment was not yet ‘final and not appealable’ until 60 days after the date of the remand order.
The Federal Circuit noted that the courts of appeals have taken two different approaches to the issue of finality for EAJA purposes. Under the “uniform” approach, the time to file an EAJA application “would run from the expiration of the time for appeal, without consideration of whether the particular final judgment would have or could have been appealed.” The “functional” approach, on the other hand, requires a “case by case exploration of whether an appeal could have been taken by either party.” The Federal Circuit had previously “adopted the uniform rule for voluntary dismissals, ‘at least where the order of dismissal does not specifically prohibit appeal’” – and saw no reason to depart from that approach in the context of “consent judgments,” as in this case. The Court thus held that the “consent judgment here became ‘not appealable’ 60 days after the entry of the remand order” – and, therefore, Mr. Bly’s EAJA application was timely.
The Secretary had also argued that the CAVC order granting the parties’ joint motion for remand was “an order of settlement” and, therefore, a final judgment under the EAJA. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument because the order granted the motion to remand did not resolve the underlying service-connection dispute. The appeal would go back to the Board – and may even return to the Court – so the Federal Circuit did not this fit within the plain meaning of “settlement.” The Federal Circuit remanded this matter to the CAVC to consider the merits of the EAJA application.
Golden, Jr. v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 221 (Feb. 23, 2018)
HELD: “Given that the DSM-5 abandoned the GAF scale and that VA has formally adopted the DSM-5, the Court holds that the Board errs when it uses GAF scores to assign a psychiatric rating in cases where the DSM-5 applies.”
SUMMARY: Veteran is service connected for PTSD, rated 70%. He appealed for a higher rating – and his appeal was certified to the Board in June 2015. The Board denied a higher rating based on the veteran’s GAF scores –even though it acknowledged that the DSM-5 applied to claims certified to the Board after August 4, 2014, and that this edition of the DSM had eliminated the use of GAF scores.
The Court recognized that VA is required to evaluate a disability “in relation to its history,” per 38 C.F.R. § 4.1, and to consider all medical and lay evidence of record –which may include GAF scores.The Court emphasized that VA’s ”rating analysis for psychiatric disorders has always been ‘symptom driven,’ meaning that ‘symptom[s] should be the fact finder’s primary focus” when assigning a rating.” The Court thus clarified: “to the extent that the Board may have been tempted to use numerical GAF scores as a shortcut for gauging psychiatric impairment, such use would be error.”
Turner v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 207 (Feb. 8, 2018)
HELD: Under38 C.F.R. §3.156(b), if new and material evidence (which could include VA treatment records) is “received” during the one-year appeal period following a regional office (RO) decision, the RO is required to consider that evidence as having been submitted with the original claim and proceed accordingly.” VA treatment records can be “constructively” received, which requires VA adjudicators to “have sufficient knowledge, within the one-year appeal period following an RO decision, that the records exist, although they need not know the contents of such records.” Until the RO reconsiders the claim with the newly received (or constructively received) evidence, “the denied claim remains pending.”
Harvey v. Shulkin, docket no. 16-1515 (Feb. 7, 2018)
HELD: Whether an attorney’s submission should be treated as a medical opinion depends on several factors, including (1) the text of the submission, (2) the identification of the author as attorney or medical professional, (3) the indicators of legal advocacy/argument in the submission, and (4) the presence of a medical opinion with supporting rationale.
SUMMARY: Mr. Harvey appealed the denial of service connection for sleep apnea. At the agency level, he was represented by David Anaise, a licensed medical doctor, attorney, and accredited VA representative. In his “appeal brief” to the RO, he stated that the veteran’s sleep apnea was more likely related to his service-connected PTSD on a secondary basis, and cited supporting medical literature. The Board denied service connection, relying on a negative C&P opinion and stating that “[t]here are no contrary opinions of record.”
On appeal to the Court, Mr. Harvey argued that the denial was in error because the Board failed to address the favorable medical opinion “submitted by his attorney-physician representative.” The Court noted that VA law does not establish requirements for determining “whether a specific submission constitutes a medical opinion” and declined to “prescribe absolute requirements” for such determinations. The Court held that these determinations are “to be undertaken individually,” and that the Board may “be obligated to assess whether that submission is a medical opinion and consider it in adjudicating a claim.”
The Court outlined several factors that should be considered in making this assessment, including whether the author of the submission identified himself/herself as a medical professional, whether the content of the submission indicated that it was legal argument, and whether the content of the submission indicated that it was a medical opinion. Because Mr. Anaise did not identify himself as acting in the capacity of a medical professional, and because the submission contained indications of legal argument and no indication that it was a medical opinion (i.e., there was no language, such as “in my medical opinion”), the Court determined that the Board did not err by failing to treat this submission as a medical opinion.
The Court also ordered oral argument for the parties to address the ethical issue of an attorney representative serving as an expert witness in a case. Because the Court held that Mr. Anaise’s “brief” was not a medical opinion, it found there was no violation of Rule 3.7 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
Finally, the Court addressed the appellant’s argument that “the Board improperly relied on its own medical judgment to determine that the article reflected a correlative rather than a causal relationship between PTSD and sleep apnea.” The Court discussed the medical treatise evidence that had been submitted and stated that it is within the Board’s purview to interpret such treatise’s meaning and assess its probative value. The Court found that the Board correctly applied the legal standard required for assessing service connection on a secondary basis. The Court explained that that “correlation” between a service-connected condition and a secondary condition is not sufficient to establish secondary service connection; “a causation or aggravation relationship is required.”
George v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 199 (Feb. 5, 2018)
HELD: Upon receiving new service records, VA must “reconsider” a claimant’s original claim even if service connection has already been granted with a later effective date. However, “given the imprecise definition of ‘reconsider’ under § 3.156(c)(1),” the Court in this case did not find CUE in the Board’s determination that a proper reconsideration occurred.
SUMMARY: In 1998, the RO denied Mr. George’s claim for service connection for PTSD because there was no confirmed PTSD diagnosis and no in-service stressor. In 2003, the veteran requested reopening. VA obtained service records, confirming the in-service stressor, and granted service connection, effective 2003. Mr. George appealed, arguing that 1998 denial should be reconsidered under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c).
In 2012, on appeal to the CAVC, the parties agreed to remand for Board to consider the applicability of § 3.156(c). The Board subsequently remands for a retrospective medical opinion to determine when Mr. George’s PTSD first manifested. The C&P examiner opined that the condition first manifested in 2003, based on the 2003 C&P examiner’s report.
In 2014, the Board denies entitlement to an earlier effective date, noting that the grant could go back to 1997, but that the first evidence of a PTSD diagnosis was not until 2003. The veteran did not appeal this decision.
In 2015, Mr. George filed a motion to revise the 2014 decision on the basis of clear and unmistakable error (CUE), arguing that the Board misapplied § 3.156(c). The Board determined that there was no CUE in the 2014 decision because the medical evidence did not support a PTSD diagnosis prior to 2003.
On appeal to the CAVC, the veteran argued that the Board erred in determining that the 2014 decision was not CUE because the Board did not “reconsider” his claim under § 3.156(c)(1), but instead only reviewed the proper effective date under § 3.156(c)(3). He argued that the finality of the original 1997 decision “‘had been undone’ by receipt of new service treatment records, and because the RO never engaged in a full readjudication, the Board erred when it found no CUE.”
At the very beginning of its opinion, the Court emphasized that “our resolution of the claimed error here under § 3.156(c) is largely dictated by the fact that we consider that matter through the prism of CUE.” (Advocacy note: This point must be emphasized. Had the veteran directly appealed the effective date assigned in the 2003 decision, this issue would not have been subjected to the heightened CUE standard.)
The CAVC discussed § 3.156(c) and found that “upon receiving official service department records in 2007, VA had a duty to ‘reconsider’ the appellant’s 1997 claim for service connection for PTSD, despite the fact that service connection for PTSD was granted in 2007 with an effective date of 2003.” The Court noted that “what would satisfy the reconsideration required is a gray area under existing law,” and noted that “§ 3.156(c) is about more than effective dates; it’s also about development of the claim in at least some respect.” Nevertheless, the Court determined that the Board “applied the correct legal principles under § 3.156(c) when it reviewed the 2014 decision.”
Turning to the question of whether the 2015 Board properly determined that there was no CUE in the 2014 decision, the Court stated: “given the imprecise definition of ‘reconsider’ under § 3.156(c)(1), the Board’s determination that a proper reconsideration occurred based on the gathering of new evidence and the reweighing of old evidence, is not arbitrary and capricious under the deferential CUE standard.”
In a footnote, the Court acknowledged the appellant’s argument that had the Board conducted a “‘full readjudication’ in 2014, his lay statements may have triggered VA’s duty to assist.” The Court stated that the duty-to-assist argument could have been raised on direct appeal, but noted that it is well established that a duty-to-assist violation cannot be CUE.
Kisor v. Shulkin, 880 F.3d 1378 (Jan. 31, 2018) (per curiam order)
SUMMARY: The majority of the en banc Court denied the petition for rehearing. However, three judges dissented on the basis that the original panel decision was predicated on Auer deference, “despite the Supreme Court’s repeated reminder that statutes concerning veterans are to be construed liberally in favor of the veteran.”
Rosinski v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 183 (Jan. 26, 2018) (per curiam order)
HELD: Attorney lacks standing to challenge VA policy limiting access to preliminary VA rating decisions to VSOs.
SUMMARY: VA has a policy that allows VSOs access to preliminary rating decisions before they are promulgated, which enables VSOs to identify any clear errors before the decisions are issued. VA limits this access to VSOs and does not provide attorneys who represent veterans with access to these preliminary decisions. An attorney challenged this policy as impeding his ability to provide competent representation, violating his rights as an accredited representative, and denying his clients fair process.
The Court held that the attorney lacked standing to challenge this policy because he did not establish that he suffered an injury (economic harm) as a result of the policy or demonstrate that the policy preventing him from representing his clients. Because the attorney lacked standing and did not show that he had asserted “a claim typical of a class,” the Court further denied the attorney’s motion for aggregate action.
In a footnote, the Court stated that it did not hold that “attorneyscategorically lack standing to challenge VA’s policy, only that Mr. Rosinski has not demonstrated that he has standing on the facts of this case.”
In a concurring opinion, Chief Judge Davis wrote that the “increased involvement of attorneys in the adjudication process . . . suggests that the disparate treatment of VSO representatives and attorneys . . . may no longer be rationally justified.”
Marcelino v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 155 (Jan. 23, 2018)
HELD: Because the Court is statutorily precluded from reviewing VA’s rating schedule, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider whether obesity should be considered a disability under the rating schedule.
SUMMARY: Mr. Marcelino was denied service connection for obesity because the Board stated that this condition was not a disability for purposes of service connection and VA compensation.
The Court first noted that it does not have jurisdiction to review the content of VA’s rating schedule, nor can it review “what should be considered a disability.” There are three exceptions to this general principle – cases involving (1) a constitutional challenge, (2) interpretation of a regulation that relates to the rating schedule, and (3) a procedural challenge to VA’s adoption of schedule regulations. Because “obesity” is not listed in the rating schedule, the Court determined that the question of whether VA should include obesity in the schedule did not fall under one of the exceptions and “would require the Court to undertake the very review of the rating schedule that has been barred from its jurisdiction.”
ADVOCACY NOTE: VA’s Office of the General Counsel issued a Precedent opinion in January 2017 that recognized that while obesity is not a disability for purposes of secondary SC under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310, it can be an “intermediate step” between a service-connected disability and a current disability that may be service connected on a secondary basis. VAOGCPREC 1-2017.
Foreman v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 155 (Jan. 22, 2018)
HELD: The July 2010 amendment to 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) that eased the burden of proof for certain veterans with claims for service connection for PTSD is not a “liberalizing” rule and, therefore, “for purposes of determining the effective date for an award of benefits based on that amendment, 38 C.F.R. § 3.114 does not apply to prevent an effective date earlier than July 2010.”
SUMMARY: In 1972, immediately following his separation from service, Vietnam veteran Frazier Foreman submitted a claim for service connection for “fungus or skin disease” and a back condition. His separation examination report notedtrouble sleeping, depression, and nervous trouble, which the examiner characterized as “nervous condition –mild.”
In 1973, the RO granted service connection for skin, back, and residuals of a right ring finger fracture. The RO referred to Mr. Foreman’s entrance and separation examinations, but mentioned no other conditions.
Between 2004 and 2008, Mr. Foreman received treatment at VA for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).In 2008, he filed a claim for service connection for PTSD. In July 2010, while his claim was pending, VA amended 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) to ease the evidentiary burden on veterans with claims for service connection based on fear of hostile military or terrorist activity. During a C&P examination, Mr. Foreman reported that he was attached to a graves registration in Vietnam and “was exposed to dismembered bodies multiple times over several months.” He reported his belief that he could have been injured and that he felt “horrified.” The examiner determined that he did not have PTSD because he did not have “fear of hostile military or terrorist activity.” The RO denied Mr. Foreman’s claim because he did not have a PTSD diagnosis – even though the RO noted record evidence of prior treatment for PTSD.
Mr. Foreman appealed and underwent another C&P examination. This examiner diagnosed PTSD, noting the veteran’s traumatic experiences. The RO granted service connection for PTSD, effective March 2011, the date of the most recent C&P examination.
Mr. Foreman appealed to the Board, and the Board granted an effective date of July 13, 2010, the date of the “liberalizing” change to 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). Mr. Foreman appealed to the Veterans Court, arguing that he is entitled to a 1972 effective date because his submission at that time was an informal claim and the 2010 change to § 3.304(f) was “procedural,” so he was not limited to the July 2010 effective date.
The Court agreed that the § 3.304(f) amendment was procedural and did not preclude an effective date earlier than July 2010. In general, the effective date for any award of benefits is the date VA receives the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. For claims granted based on change in law (or a “liberalizing” rule), the effective date cannot be earlier than the effective date of the change in law. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.400(p), 3.114.
The Court noted that the Federal Circuit previously held that a “liberalizing law for purposes of determining effective dates is one that brings about a substantive change in the law, creating a new and different entitlement to a benefit.” Spencer v. Brown, 17 F.3d 368, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Court stated that VA itself had “recognized the procedural nature of the amendment when it published the final rule,” and held: “The July 13, 2010, amendment to § 3.304(f) is not a liberalizing rule and …for purposes of determining the effective date for an award of benefits based on that amendment, 38 C.F.R. § 3.114 does not apply to prevent an effective date earlier than July 2010.”
The Court declined to assign a September 2008 effective date (as requested by VA) –because Mr. Foreman was asking for an effective date earlier than 2008. The Court reversed the portion of the Board’s decision that denied an effective date earlier than July 2010, and remanded for the Board to determine the appropriate effective date.
King v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 174 (Dec. 21, 2017)
HELD: “[T]he availability of higher scheduler ratings plays no role in an extraschedular analysis and  it is inappropriate for the Board to deny extraschedular referral on this basis.”
SUMMARY: Dudley King is service connected for hearing loss, rated 0%. He appeals for a compensable rating. VA examiners noted “significant effects” on occupation, “poor social interactions,” “hearing difficulty,” “balance problems,” and “dizziness.” One VA examiner summarized the effect of his hearing loss on his life and his work as “difficulty hearing.”
At a Board hearing, he testified that he could not hear the phone ring; he needed to turn up the volume on the television, which made his wife leave the room; he could not hear bird sounds; and he got angry at having to ask people to repeat themselves. The Board remanded for a new examination, and the subsequent VA examiner stated that his hearing loss did not impact his life or work. The Board denied a compensable rating and extraschedular referral because it found that the rating criteria “reasonably describe” his disability and “provide for higher ratings for more severe symptoms.”
He appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Court framed the issues as (1) whether the rating criteria adequately contemplated the function effects of his hearing loss such that extraschedular referral was not required and (2) whether the availability of a higher schedularrating is relevant to the extraschedular analysis.
The Court began its analysis by explaining the relevant law regarding schedular and extraschedular ratings. The Court emphasized that “[t]he goal of the entire rating process is to appropriately compensate veterans. The schedular and extraschedular analyses are just different means of doing so.”
The Court described the “three-part inquiry” in determining whether referral for extraschedular consideration is warranted. The first element of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b) –whether the evidence “presents such an exceptional disability picture” that the schedular ratings are inadequate –requires VA to “compare a veteran’s specific symptoms and their severity with those contemplated by the plain language of the rating schedule.” With respect to this element, the Court noted that “impact on employment is not a symptom.”
If the Board determines that the symptoms or their severity are not contemplated by the rating schedule, the second step requires the Board to determine whether the exceptional disability picture exhibits “other related factors,” such as “marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization.” In this case, the Board determined that extraschedular referral was not warranted because it found the rating criteria reasonably describe Mr. King’s disability and provide for “higher ratings for more severe symptoms.” It was this second rationale that caught the Court’s attention.
As the Court recently held in Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet.App. 366 (2017), the hearing loss ratings “contemplate the functional effects of decreased hearing and difficulty understanding speech,” but do not “contemplate all functional impairment due to a claimant’s hearing loss.” The Court in Doucette “provided a non-exhaustive list of functional effects” that are outside the rating schedule – such as “pain, dizziness, recurrent loss of balance, or social isolation” – and “acknowledged the existence of effects that would be inherently outside the rating schedule,”
The Court held that ”[t]he availability of higher schedular ratings plays no role in an extraschedular analysis and [ ] it is inappropriate for the Board to deny extraschedular referral on this basis.” The Court explained that the Board’s logic in such a denial “would functionally invalidate § 3.321(b)(1) entirely,” and provided the following example: Assume a disability is rated 30% for symptoms A and B; and 50% for symptoms A, B, X, and Z. What happens to a veteran who’s rated 30% - but has symptoms A, B, and X, but not Z? “Under the Board’s logic, no matter how significantly that veteran’s earning ability were impaired,” VA would be able to deny extraschedular referral just because the rating schedule provided for a higher schedular rating. The Court stated that “[t]his example is precisely the situation § 3.321(b)(1) was created to address.”
The Court further clarified that the holding of King is not limited to hearing loss claims. “Section 3.321 is applicable to all claims.”
Crediford v. Shulkin, 877 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 18, 2017)
HELD: The Board cannot “make its own findings on of the facts of line of duty and willful misconduct,” particularly when there are relevant service records before it.
SUMMARY: Marvin Crediford served in the U.S. Coast Guard from August 1983 to August 1985 and January 1990 to March 1991. In January 1985, he was in a car accident after he had been drinking. Several hours after he had stopped drinking, his blood alcohol level was measured as .12 percent. He was charged with driving under the influence.
He reported the incident to the Coast Guard, and in April 1985, the local commanding officer issued a report, stating that fatigue and alcohol were responsible for the accident, and that his injuries “were not the result of his own misconduct and were incurred in the line of duty.”
In December 1985, several months after he left the Coast Guard, a memorandum was issued by the Commander of the Thirteenth Coast Guard District. This memorandum referred to a November 1985 “finding” by the Commandant of the Coast Guard that his injuries were “not incurred in the line of duty and were due to his own misconduct.”
In 2004, Mr. Crediford filed a claim for disability compensation. The RO denied the claim because his injuries were the result of willful misconduct and not incurred in the line of duty. The RO stated that the veteran’s service records did not contain a line-of-duty determination. The RO noted the December 1985 memorandum – but not the April 1985 decision.
Mr. Crediford appealed and submitted the April 1985 decision. At a Board hearing, he asserted that the December 1985 memorandum was issued “post-discharge, without notice that an LOD investigation was ongoing and was not disclosed.” The Board found the preponderance of the evidence against the claim, noting that his blood alcohol content raised “a presumption” of intoxication that “was not rebutted in this case.”
The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that the Board provided adequate reasons for bases for its finding that his Mr. Crediford’s injury was the result of willful misconduct. Neither the Board nor the Court resolved the discrepancy between the April and November 1985 findings regarding willful misconduct.
On appeal to the Federal Circuit, Mr. Crediford argued that the April 1985 LOD decision should prevail because the December 1985 memorandum was not a line-of-duty determination and the November 1985 document referenced in the memorandum was not in the record. Thus, the April 1985 decision was the only LOD determinationof record that was binding on VA. Mr. Crediford also argued that the Board and the Veterans Court “created a new per se standard or presumption of willful misconduct based solely on blood alcohol level, contrary to VA regulation.”
The Federal Circuit noted that in-service injuries are presumed to be incurred in the line of duty unless they are caused by the veteran’s willful misconduct or substance abuse. Under VA regulations, drinking alcohol, in and of itself, is not willful misconduct unless “a service member consumes alcohol to enjoy its intoxicating effects, and the intoxication ‘proximately and immediately’ results in the injury.” *7 (citing 38 C.F.R. § 3.301(c)(2)). The Court also noted that service department findings – including findings regarding willful misconduct and line of duty – are binding on VA. *7-8 (citing 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(m) and (n)). The Court framed the issue on appeal as “whether the Board had authority to ignore the Service Department’s findings.”
The Court found that neither the Board nor the Court resolved the conflict between the April 1985 decision and the November 1985 document, and held that “the Board erred in simply making its own findings on the question of willful misconduct when there were service department findings before it.” The Court added that the Coast Guard’s “determinations, made in 1985 when the accident occurred, must be addressed” and that “[i]t was error for the Board to make its own findings of the facts of line of duty and willful misconduct.” The Court remanded for further proceedings to address the question of application of 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(m)-(n).