Rosinski: Attorney challenges VA policy re: access to draft rating decisions

Rosinski v. Wilkie, docket no. 18-0678 (en banc) (Jan. 24, 2019) 

HELD: Attorney challenging VA’s policy to provide draft rating decisions to VSOs, but not attorneys, has direct standing and third-party standing to bring the challenge, and the appropriate remedy is to order the Secretary to issue a decision on his request for access to draft rating decisions.

 SUMMARY: Mr. Rosinski, veterans’ attorney, petitioned the Court for a writ of mandamus to compel VA to provide him with the same access to preliminary draft rating decisions that VA makes available to VSOs. This is the second petition filed on this issue. The Court dismissed the first one for lack of standing.

 The Court now determined that Mr. Rosinski has direct standing to have the Court hear his petition because (1) he has a statutory right under 38 U.S.C. § 5904(a) to represent clients throughout the VA claims process and the Secretary’s policy violates that right; (2) the Secretary is required under 38 U.S.C. § 5701(b) to disclosed “files, records, reports, and other papers and documents” to the “duly authorized agent or representative of a claimant”; and (3) “the Secretary’s policy results in both tangible and intangible harm” to the petitioner.

 The Court also determined that Mr. Rosinski has third-party standing on behalf of his clients to bring this petition. The Court noted that each of his clients “has a due process right to fair adjudication of his claim for benefits” and that while VA’s policy granting VSOs review of draft decisions is discretionary, “it results in a system where some veterans – those represented by attorneys – are deprived of a benefit afforded to others – those represented by VSOs.” The Court also found that because he has “existing attorney-client relationships with [his] clients, . . . he has a sufficiently close relationship to warrant third-party standing,” regardless of the fact that he “has not identified a specific client.” The Court further found that “there is a hindrance to the petitioner’s clients’ ability to protect their own interests . . . because of the structure of the VA adjudication system” and that the petitioner “is in a better position to assert his clients’ rights in this matter than any one of his clients is individually.”

While the Court found that Mr. Rosinski has standing to have his petition heard, the Court declined the address the merits of the petition because it determined that he has alternative means to obtain his relief – namely, by obtaining an appealable decision from VA. The Court granted the petition, in part, and directed the Secretary to issue an official, appealable decision on Mr. Rosinski’s request for access to draft rating decisions within 30 days. The Court noted that the Secretary “has the power to resolve this case with a single stroke of his pen” by changing the policy to allow ALL accredited representatives access to draft decisions. The Court added that the Secretary’s inaction in the year since the prior petition “is troubling” and that “the Secretary should consider whether he – and the veterans Congress charged him to assist – would be better served by voluntarily changing his policy, rather than by waiting for the lengthy appeals process to run its course.”

FULL DECISION

Demery: Notice of Appeal Filed After Veteran's Death

Demery v. Wilkie, docket no. 17-3469 (per curiam order) (Jan. 17, 2019)

HELD: Timely Notice of Appeal filed after the veteran’s death was not valid with respect to the substituted party, but the eligible substitute may amend the NOA to name her as the appellant and ask the Court to relate the amended NOA back to the date the original NOA was filed so as to make it timely.

SUMMARY: On October 3, 2017, the Court received a timely NOA of a June 22, 2017 Board decision. Shortly afterwards, the attorneys who filed the NOA notified the Court that the veteran had passed away and filed a motion to substitute his surviving spouse. The Court then discovered that the veteran had passed away in August 2017 – after the Board’s decision, but before the NOA had been filed. Because “a dead person may not appeal a Board decision,” the Court found that the NOA was “defective,” but still allowed the surviving spouse to file an amended NOA and to relate that NOA back to the date of the original filing.

FULL DECISION

George: Presumption of Soundness, CUE, Retroactivity

George v. Wilkie, docket no. 16-2174 (Jan. 4, 2019) 

HELD: In order to rebut the presumption of soundness, 38 U.S.C. § 1111 has always required VA to prove that a condition both pre-existed and was not aggravated by service. However, that is not how VA interpreted the statute prior to 2003 – and the Court declined to retroactively apply the correct statutory interpretation, as set forth in Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2004), to an appeal alleging CUE in a pre-2003 final decision. 

SUMMARY: Kevin George was diagnosed with schizophrenia in service. A Medical Board report found that the condition pre-existed and was aggravated by service, but a Physical Evaluation Board found that the pre-existing condition was not aggravated by service. He filed a claim for service connection a few months after discharge and was denied in 1976. The Board denied the claim in 1977. 

In 2014, he filed a request to revise the 1977 Board decision on the basis of clear-and-unmistakable error (CUE), alleging that the Board failed to correctly apply the presumption of soundness by not rebutting “with clear and unmistakable evidence that his condition was not aggravated by service.” The Board found no CUE in the 1977 decision, noting that the Board at the time was not required to find clear and unmistakable evidence of a lack of aggravation. The Board acknowledged the Federal Circuit’s holding in Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2004), but stated that “judicial decisions that formulate new interpretations of the law subsequent to a VA decision cannot form the basis of CUE.” 

On appeal at the CAVC, the Court outlined the relevant law. The Court first noted that the presumption of soundness statute in 1977 (and today) allowed the Secretary to rebut only by showing of clear and unmistakable evidence of bothpre-existence andlack of aggravation. However, VA’s implementing regulation in 1977, 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b), only required clear and unmistakable evidence that the condition pre-existed service. VA invalidated the regulation in 2003. Wagner was decided in 2004.

The Court explained the requirements for establishing CUE in a final decision, noting that 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403(e) “states that CUE ‘does not include the otherwise correct application of a statute or regulation where, subsequent to the Board decision challenged, there has been a change in the interpretation of the statute or regulation.’” The Court cited DAV v. Gober, 234 F.3d 682, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2000) in holding that “[t]he new interpretation of a statute can only retroactively [a]ffect decisions still open on direct review, not those decisions that are final.”

The Court then discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Wagner and its subsequent holding in Jordan v. Nicholson, 401 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In Jordan, the Court applied the DAV rule to Wagner, holding that “CUE does not arise from a new regulatory interpretation of a statute.” In other words, even though Wagner explained that the presumption of soundness statute has always meant that it can only be rebutted with clear and unmistakable evidence of both pre-existence and a lack of aggravation, a claimant could not raise a CUE challenge to a final decision based on the invalidation of VA’s implementing regulation that only required a showing of pre-existence to rebut. 

Finally, the Court discussed the Patrick line of primarily nonprecedential cases that addressed Wagner, Jordan, and retroactivity in a CUE case. In Patrick, as in the present appeal, the claimant argued CUE in a prior final decision based on the incorrect application of the presumption of soundness. The CAVC affirmed the Board’s denial and the Federal Circuit remanded for the Court to consider the application of Wagner, which had recently been decided at that time. 

On remand, the CAVC again affirmed the Board’s denial, citing Jordan for holding that Wagner’s “new” interpretation of the presumption of soundness did not retroactively apply in a CUE case. Mrs. Patrick again appealed, and, in Patrick III, also a nonprecedential decision, the Federal Circuit explained that Jordan dealt with “whether a change in the regulatory interpretation of a statute had retroactive effect on CUE [motions], not whether [its] interpretation of the statute in Wagner had retroactive effect on CUE [motions].” The Federal Circuit described the Jordan holding as limited, stating that “[u]nlike changes in regulations and statutes, which are prospective, [the Court’s] interpretation of a statute is retrospective in that it explains what the statute has meant since the date of enactment.” In other words, “Wagner did not change the law but explained what [section] 1111 has always meant.” The Federal Circuit remanded the matter back to the CAVC to determine whether VA rebutted the presumption of soundness with clear and unmistakable evidence of a lack of aggravation. The CAVC vacated the Board’s decision, and the attorney filed an application for EAJA fees. 

The CAVC denied the EAJA application, finding that the Secretary’s position was substantially justified. Again, Mrs. Patrick appealed to the Federal Circuit. In Patrick v. Shinseki (Patrick VI), 668 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2011) – the only precedential decision in this line of cases – the Federal Circuit reversed the CAVC’s decision and remanded for the CAVC to consider substantial justification under the “totality of circumstances” test. In a footnote, the Federal Circuit noted that in Patrick III, it had rejected the CAVC’s determination that the correct “interpretation of section 1111 did not apply retroactively in the context of a CUE claim,” and repeated that “our interpretation of § 1111 . . . did not change the law but explained what [section] 1111 has always meant.”

With respect to retroactivity and CUE, the Court acknowledged that the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of section 1111 in Wagner is “an authoritative statement of what the statute meant before as well as after” that decision, but still found that the 2004 Wagner decision “cannot defeat the finality of a 1977 Board decision . . . because consideration of CUE requires the application of the law as it was understood at the time of the 1977 decision.” The Court explained: “Applying a statute or regulation as it was interpreted and understood at the time a prior final decision is rendered does not become CUE by virtue of a subsequent interpretation of the statute or regulation by this Court or the Federal Circuit.” 

In applying the law to the facts of this case, the Court noted that the Secretary conceded that the Board erred when it determined that the 1977 Board was not required to find clear and unmistakable evidence of a lack of aggravation due to the 1977 version of the implementing regulation. The Court disagreed with this concession of error, stating that “it is not clear how the Board could have ignored [38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b)] or why the Board would have been required to find clear and unmistakable evidence of aggravation in 1977.” [ABK note: I don’t know . . . maybe because the statute says so? Call me crazy . . . ] The Court held: “While the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of the presumption of soundness statute in Wagner sets forth what the statute has always meant, it was not the interpretation or understanding of the statute before its issuance.” The Court noted the Federal Circuit’s finding in Jordan that “there was a change in interpretation of section 1111” when VA invalidated § 3.304(b) and thus determined that “Wagner does not apply retroactively to final decisions.” 

In response to the argument based on the Patrick line of cases, the Court held that Patrick III is not binding precedent and the footnote in Patrick VI is dicta. The Court added that the statements in Patrick III and Patrick VI regarding “Wagner’s retroactivity conflict with other precedential Federal Circuit caselaw,” specifically DAV, which held that “[t]he new interpretation of a statute can only retroactively [a]ffect decisions still open on direct review, not those decision[s] that are final.” To bolster its decision, the Court stated: “The impact of allowing judicial decisions interpreting statutory provisions issued after final VA decisions to support allegations of CUE would cause a tremendous hardship on an already overburdened VA system of administering veterans benefits.” 

The Court further found that even if Wagner applied retroactively, Mr. George’s CUE allegation would fail because he did not prove that the 2016 Board erred in determining that the 1977 Board’s errors did not manifestly change the outcome of its decision. The Court thus affirmed the 2016 Board’s decision.  

In a well-crafted dissent that will likely form the foundation for an appeal to the Federal Circuit, Judge Bartley stated that “the will of Congress, not VA, should prevail.” She reiterated that the Federal Circuit “‘soundly rejected’ the argument ‘that this court’s interpretation of section IIII did not apply retroactively in the context of a CUE claim” citing the Patrick VI footnote, adding that she was “not willing to dismiss this unambiguous and germane guidance from our reviewing court, particularly when that guidance is grounded in the unalterable principle that veteran-friendly congressional intent holds primacy over a VA interpretation that is less beneficial to veterans.” She rejected the majority’s concern of causing “a tremendous hardship” on VA, stating that she would have “no reservations about requiring VA to remedy the decades old errors that prohibit otherwise deserving veterans and their dependents from receiving the benefits to which they are statutorily entitled.”

FULL DECISION

Burkhart: DIC, 38 U.S.C. § 1151, & VA home loan guaranty

Burkhart v. Wilkie, docket no. 16-1334 (Jan. 3, 2019)

HELD: Surviving spouse of veteran whose death was service connected under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 and who is thus entitled to DIC benefits is not entitled to home loan guaranty benefits under Ch. 37. 

SUMMARY: Surviving spouse was granted dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) after her husband’s death was deemed service connected under 38 U.S.C. § 1151. She sought and obtained a certificate of eligibility (COE) for a VA home loan in 2007, but never entered into a loan agreement. In 2013, she again requested an eligibility determination for a loan guaranty and was informed that she was not eligible and that the 2007 COE was issue in error. 

On appeal, the Court reviewed the relevant statutory provisions and determined that she was not eligible under the plain language or the legislative history of 38 U.S.C. § 1151 or Ch. 37. The Court also determined that the “incontestability” provision of 38 U.S.C. § 3721 applies to the relationship between the government and lending institutions – not between the government and those who are eligible for a loan guaranty. Finally, the Court addressed the appellant’s arguments regarding the Court’s ability to provide relief based on its equitable powers. The Court acknowledged that while it has equitable authority, “that authority is constrained by the jurisdiction Congress conferred on the Court.” The Court discussed the four equitable principles argued by the appellant – injunctive relief, equitable estoppel, laches, and waiver – and determined that none were available in this case as a form of relief. 

FULL DECISION

Kisor: Supreme Court grants certiorari

The Supreme Court added Kisor v. Wilkie to its docket.

LINK TO SCOTUS ORDER: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121018zor_f2ah.pdf

The Court will limit its review to the first question in the petition - whether the Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), with respect to deferring to VA’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations.

LINK TO PETITION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-15/51909/20180629164148460_Kisor.cert.pet.pdf

Harper: TDIU is "part and parcel" of underlying claim

Harper v. Wilkie, 30 Vet.App. 356 (Dec. 6, 2018)

HELD: Entitlement to TDIU is “part and parcel of the underlying … claim” and a “grant of TDIU did not bifurcate the appeal but rather served as a partial grant.” Once the issue of a higher rating is in appellate status and the claimant is “not awarded the highest rating possible, including TDIU, for the entire appeal period, the issue of entitlement to TDIU remain[s] on appeal” and the Board has jurisdiction over it.

SUMMARY: The veteran was granted service connection for PTSD, rated 50%. 30 Vet.App. at 357. He appealed for a higher rating and submitted a TDIU application during the pendency of that appeal. Id. at 358. The RO denied TDIU, and Mr. Harper did not appeal that decision. Id.

In December 2015, the RO granted a 70% rating, but no higher. Id. Mr. Harper submitted another application for TDIU in February 2016. Id. The RO then granted TDIU effective February 2016. Id. The veteran appealed to the Board for a higher rating prior to December 2015, and the Board declined to address the effective date for TDIU because he had not appealed the decision that granted TDIU. Id.

This is appeal was sent to a panel for the Court to address whether the RO’s grant of TDIU bifurcated that issue from the appeal for a higher rating, thus requiring the veteran to file a new Notice of Disagreement to appeal the effective date for TDIU.

The Court held that Mr. Harper did not have to appeal the TDIU decision while the appeal for a higher rating for PTSD was pending “because the issue of entitlement to TDIU became part and parcel of the underlying PTSD claim and the RO’s grant of TDIU served only as a partial grant of his request for TDIU.” Id. at 359. The Court stated that “once Mr. Harper’s PTSD claim was in appellate status by virtue of the December 2008 NOD, … the issue of TDIU became part of the underlying PTSD claim when he filed an application for TDIU in February 2014.” Id. The Court stated that the “appeal for a higher disability rating was sufficient, when coupled with evidence of unemployability, to raise the issue of entitlement to TDIU for the entire appeal period” because “the issue of entitlement to TDIU … became part and parcel of the appeal for a higher initial disability rating for PTSD, and … the RO’s grant of TDIU did not bifurcate the appeal but rather served as a partial grant.” Id. at 361. The Court further explained:  

Mr. Harper’s NOD placed the issue of the appropriate disability evaluation into appellate status and, therefore, because he was not awarded the highest rating possible, including TDIU, for the entire appeal period, the issue of entitlement to TDIU for the period prior to February 2016 remained on appeal, and the Board had jurisdiction to consider that matter.  

Id. at 362. The Court reversed the Board’s decision and directed the Board to consider entitlement to TDIU prior to February 2016.

The Court also found that the Board failed to adequately explain its rejection of evidence that it mentioned in its recitation of the facts, but did not address in the analysis portion of the decision. The Court also found that the Board overlooked potentially relevant evidence of occupational impairment, and remanded for the Board to correct its reasons-or-bases errors that had been noted in a prior remand.

FULL DECISION

Event: 2018 Mizzou Veterans Clinic Symposium

November 9, 2018 - University of Missouri School of Law, Columbia, MO

The Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017: Finding Footing

ABK and Zach Stolz, Partner, Chisholm, Chisholm, & Kilpatrick, will provide practice pointers to veterans’ advocates.

LINK TO PROGRAM: http://law.missouri.edu/faculty/symposia/veterans-clinic-symposium/

Overton: M21-1 definition of "inland waterways" is not binding on the Board

Overton v. Wilkie, docket no. 17-0125 (Sept. 19, 2018)

HELD: The M21-1 provision that excludes all Vietnamese bays and harbors from the definition of “inland waterways,” for purposes of presumptive exposure to herbicides, is not binding on the Board – and while the Board can rely on this M21-1 provision as a factor in its analysis, it “must independently review the matter the M21-1 addresses” and explain its reliance on the provision. 

SUMMARY: Patrick Overton appealed the denial of service connection for diabetes and ischemic heart disease, asserting that he was exposed to herbicides while serving aboard the USS Providencein Da Nang Harbor in 1967. The Board denied the claims based on VA’s Adjudication Procedures Manual(M21-1) that excluded all bays and harbors from the definition of “inland waterways.” *3. 

At the Court, Mr. Overton argued that he is entitled to the presumption of service connection based on herbicide exposure and that the Board failed to analyze the possibility of his exposure. *4. He argued that the Board is required to determine whether it was at least as likely as not that there were levels of herbicides in Da Nang Harbor “sufficient to justify the herbicide exposure presumption, not whether it is probable that he was exposed to herbicides.” *5. The Secretary argued that the Board properly applied the law. 

The Court discussed the legal history surrounding VA’s distinction between “blue water” and “brown water” and its definition of “inland waterways” for purposes of presuming exposure to herbicides. *6-7. The Court summarized this history as follows: (1) VA can “draw reasonable lines demarcating inland versus offshore waterways when considering whether a veteran is entitled to the presumption of herbicide exposure” (Haas v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2008)); (2) VA must do so “in a reasoned, nonarbitrary manner focused on the likelihood of herbicide exposure” (Gray v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 313 (2015)); and (3) “the Board is not bound by M21-1 provisions” (Gray v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 875 F.3d 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). *7. 

Turning to Mr. Overton’s appeal, the Court found that the Board provided no more than a description of the holdings in Haasand Gray“to support its conclusion that Da Nang Harbor is not brown water warranting presumptive herbicide exposure.” *8. The Court found that the Board’s terse reference to the “new guidance” of the M21-1 provision was error because the Board is not bound by the M21-1 – and for it to simply “cite an M21-1 provision without further analysis … would effectively convert the M21-1 into substantive rules as a practical matter without providing a means to challenge such rules under the [Administrative Procedure Act].” *8. The Court added that the Board’s citation to the M21-1 as the sole support for its conclusion – that Da Nang Harbor is blue water – is inconsistent with the statutory requirement that the Board adequately explain its decisions. 

The Court recognized that the M21-1 provision is relevant to issues on appeal – and that the Board cannot ignore this relevant provision. However, the Court held that the Board cannot “simply rely on an M21-1 provision … without first independently reviewing the matter” and explaining “why it finds the M21-1 an accurate guideline for its decision.” The Court rephrased its holding: “[T]he Board is required to discuss any relevant provisions contained in the M21-1 as part of its duty to provide adequate reasons or bases, but because it is not bound by those provisions, it must make its own determination before it chooses to rely on an M21-1 provision as a factor to support its decision.” *8. The Court remanded for the Board to explain its reliance on the M21-1 provision. *9.  

The Court further noted that the purpose of the regulation that established the herbicide presumption was “to compensate veterans based on the probability or likelihood of exposure to herbicides.” On remand, the Court directed the Board to “explain why its determination of entitlement to presumptive service connection is based on a likely herbicide exposure and achieves the purpose behind the regulation.” *9. 

At oral argument, the Secretary urged the Court to defer to his M21-1 interpretation under Auer v. Robins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). The Court declined to address this argument, as the Secretary did not raise it in his brief, but instead raised it for the first time at oral argument. *9-10. 

The Court also declined the address Mr. Overton’s arguments regarding service connection on a direct basis because that theory might be connected to the issue of presumptive exposure. *11. 

FULL DECISION

Martin: Petition for writ of mandamus; TRAC standard

Martin v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1338 (June 7, 2018) 

HELD: The multi-factorial TRAC standard is the appropriate standard for the CAVC to use in evaluating petitions for writs of mandamus based on unreasonable delay. 

SUMMARY: In evaluating mandamus petitions based on unreasonable delay, the Court has applied the standard from Costanza v. West, 12 Vet.App,. 133 (1999) (per curiam), that requires a petitioner to demonstrate that “the delay he complains of is so extraordinary, given the demands and resources of the Secretary, that the delay amounts to an arbitrary refusal to act, and not the product of a burdened system.”

The Federal Circuit held that this standard was “insurmountable,” and that the more appropriate standard was the one set forth in Telecomms. Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC (“TRAC”), 750 F.2d 70, 76 (D.C. Cir. 1984). The Federal Circuit noted that other courts have used the TRAC standard when evaluating petitions based on an administrative agency’s unreasonable delay – and found that the TRAC framework was more appropriate than the CAVC’s current Constanza standard. 

The TRAC framework requires courts to consider six factors: 

(1) the time agencies take to make decisions must be governed by a “rule of reason”; 

(2) where Congress has provided a timetable or other indication of the speed with which it expects the agency to proceed in the enabling statute, that statutory scheme may supply content for this rule of reason; 

(3) delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of economic regulation are less tolerable when human health and welfare are at stake; 

(4) the court should consider the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority; 

(5) the court should also take into account the nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay; and 

(6) the court need not find “any impropriety lurking behind agency lassitude” in order to hold that agency action is unreasonably delayed.

The Federal Circuit remanded for the CAVC to use the TRAC framework as guidance in evaluating petitions based on delay. 

FULL DECISION

Acree: Withdrawal of appeal during Board hearing

Acree v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009 (June 4, 2018)

HELD: A veteran can withdraw an appeal at a hearing, as long as the withdrawal “is explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action on the part of the claimant.”

SUMMARY: At a Board hearing, the veteran withdrew seven of his eleven appeal issues. He was represented by a DAV representative. The Board issued a decision, remanding the remaining four claims and dismissing the withdrawn claims. Mr. Acree then appealed to the CAVC, arguing that the Board failed to adequately explain its determination that he had effectively withdrawn the seven claims. He quoted DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet.App. 45 (2011), to assert that a veteran’s withdrawal of a claim is not effective unless the withdrawal “is explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action on the part of the claimant.” The CAVC affirmed the Board’s decision. 

On appeal, the Federal Circuit first noted that VA’s regulation regarding withdrawal of appeals at the Board, 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(b)(1), describes what is required to withdraw an appeal in writing, but is silent with respect to how to withdraw an appeal during a hearing. The Federal Circuit noted the CAVC’s holding in DeLisioand that case’s harmony with the “uniquely pro-claimant nature” of the VA benefits scheme, and determined that “DeLisio sets a reasonable standard for withdrawals at hearings.” The Court found that the CAVC erred by not ensuring that the Board adhered to the DeLisio standard. Because the CAVC “improperly absolved the Board of any obligation” to ensure the veteran had a “full understanding of the consequences” of the withdrawal, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the CAVC’s decision.

FULL DECISION

Lopez: Equitable tolling

Lopez v. O’Rourke, 30 Vet.App. 103 (June 1, 2018)

HELD: Misinformation regarding the VA appeals process, having to care for an ailing spouse, and “forgetfulness” were not sufficient to warrant equitable tolling of the 120-day deadline to file a Notice of Appeal with the CAVC.

FULL DECISION

Robinson: EAJA, prevailing party

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. 

FULL DECISION

Blue: EAJA, prevailing party status

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. 

FULL DECISION

O'Brien: Dependency, Legal Guardianship

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). 

FULL DECISION

Burris: Education benefits, equitable relief

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.  

FULL DECISION

Saunders: Pain is a disability subject to compensation

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.

 FULL DECISION

Event: NOVA 2018 Spring Conference

March 15-17, 2018 - San Diego, CA

NOVA 2018 Fall Conference

ABK presentation - Establishing Secondary Service Connection

LINK TO PROGRAM: https://vetadvocates.org/2018-spring-conference/ 

Porriello: CUE, res judicata

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.

FULL DECISION

Zeglin: Medication copayment reimbursement

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.

FULL DECISION

Bly: EAJA, timeliness

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. 

FULL DECISION