Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07070/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07070-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Bob H. Schellinger
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BOB H. SCHELLINGER,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7070

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-2254, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.

______________________ 

Decided: October 1, 2015

______________________ 

BOB H. SCHELLINGER, Putnam, CT, pro se.

PETER ANTHONY GWYNNE, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also 

represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR., SCOTT D. AUSTIN; Y. KEN LEE, CHRISTINA 

LYNN GREGG, Office of General Counsel, United States 

Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-7070 Document: 17-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/01/2015
2 SCHELLINGER v. MCDONALD

Before NEWMAN, DYK, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Mr. Bob H. Schellinger appeals the decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(CAVC) affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals that denied an effective date earlier than November 15, 2007, for the award of service connection for 

heart disease, including hypertensive heart disease and 

coronary artery disease. Bob H. Schellinger v. Robert A. 

McDonald, Sec. of Veterans Affairs, No. 13-2254 (Vet. 

App. Jan 16, 2015). The appeal is dismissed, for it raises 

only factual questions whose review is not within our 

appellate jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Schellinger served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 

November 1961 until September 1963. On May 21, 1970, 

he filed a claim for compensation, claiming service connection for “high blood pressure and a skin condition caused 

by nerves.” Record before the Agency at 2335. On June 

9, 1970, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) granted 

service connection for the anxiety disorder but denied 

service connection for hypertension, concluding that Mr. 

Schellinger’s hypertension was caused by obesity and was

not service connected. By statute, a Notice of Disagreement must be filed within one year.

The VA’s records show receipt, on November 15, 2007, 

of a copy of a letter dated September 1970, stating Mr.

Schellinger’s disagreement with the denial of his hypertension claim. Part of the debate concerns when this 

letter was first sent to the VA. Apparently the letter

whose copy was received on November 15, 2007, did not 

receive acknowledgement in 1970. On November 18, 

2011, the VA’s Hartford Regional Office granted Mr. 

Schellinger service connection “for heart disease to inCase: 15-7070 Document: 17-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/01/2015
SCHELLINGER v. MCDONALD 3

clude hypertensive heart disease and coronary artery 

disease,” and assigned a 100 percent disability rating 

with an effective date of November 15, 2007. 

On November 5, 2012, Mr. Schellinger challenged the 

effective date, citing his letter of September 1970. The 

Board issued a decision on July 2, 2013, including finding 

of the following facts:

The RO denied the Veteran’s claim for service

connection for hypertension in June 1970; he did 

not disagree with this decision; and he has not 

claimed it was tainted by clear and unmistakable 

error.

A letter dated in September 1970 was initially received by VA in November 2007. 

The Veteran filed an initial claim for service connection for heart disease in November 2007; nothing in the file could be construed as an earlier 

informal claim for service connection for heart disease. 

Bd. Op. at 2. The Board found that “the earliest indication 

that the Veteran desired service connection for heart 

disease as secondary to his psychiatric disorder was the 

November 2007 formal claim for that benefit.” Bd. Op. at 

11.

The Board also analyzed whether Schellinger’s several 

hospitalizations with the VA starting in 1995, could be 

considered an informal claim for service connection for his 

hypertension. The Board concluded the hospitalizations 

were not an informal claim because his claim for service 

connection for hypertension had been “denied outright” in 

1970, and medical records may only be used as informal 

claims “for increase or to reopen” claims for an “already 

service-connected condition.” Id. at 8 (citing 38 C.F.R. 

§ 3.157 and King v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 464, 468 

(2010)). The Board also concluded that “the simple 

Case: 15-7070 Document: 17-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/01/2015
4 SCHELLINGER v. MCDONALD

existence of medical records reflecting diagnosis and 

treatment of heart disease, without any communication 

from Schellinger himself, cannot be construed as an 

intention to reopen the prior denial of service connection 

for hypertension.” Id. at 9–10.

The Board denied Schellinger’s claim that he was entitled to an effective date earlier than November 15, 2007 

for his award of secondary service connection for heart 

disease. Id. at 11. Mr. Schellinger appealed to the CAVC. 

On March 21, 2014, as an attachment to his informal 

brief, Schellinger attached a copy of the September 1, 

1970 letter to the Board that, the CAVC observed, “appears to contain two date stamps.” CAVC Op. 3. One of 

the date stamps is May 21, 1970 (the date the original 

claim was filed), and the other date stamp is November 

15, 2007 (the date a copy of the letter was received by the 

VA as contained in the VA’s records). 

The CAVC ruled that the Board had correctly denied 

an effective date earlier than November 15, 2007. The 

CAVC also found that despite the September 1, 1970 date 

on the letter, the earliest that the VA received the letter 

was November 15, 2007. Applying the presumption of 

administrative regularity as discussed in Fithian v.

Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 146, 151 (2010), the CAVC ruled 

that even if Schellinger had sent the letter in 1970, that 

would be insufficient to rebut the presumption that the 

VA did not receive the letter because the VA is presumed 

to have acknowledged or acted in some way on the letter, 

had it been received. The CAVC affirmed the Board’s 

ruling that no Notice of Disagreement was filed within the 

statutory one-year period. 

The CAVC also agreed with the Board that nothing in 

the record could be construed as an informal claim for 

service connection for heart disease prior to the November 

15, 2007 letter. Thus the CAVC affirmed that the earliest 

Case: 15-7070 Document: 17-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/01/2015
SCHELLINGER v. MCDONALD 5

date for which Mr. Schellinger was entitled to service

connection for heart disease was November 15, 2007. 

The CAVC ruling was a one-judge decision, as the 

court’s rules authorize. Mr. Schellinger moved for reconsideration, or for a panel decision. The CAVC granted 

the motion for a panel decision. The panel then held that 

Mr. Schellinger had not demonstrated that “1) the singlejudge memorandum decision overlooked or misunderstood 

a fact or point of law prejudicial to the outcome of the 

appeal, 2) there is any conflict with precedential decisions 

of the Court, or 3) the appeal otherwise raises an issue 

warranting a precedential decision.” CAVC Op. at 1.

On appeal to this court, Mr. Schellinger states that the 

law was incorrectly applied in determining whether a 

timely Notice of Disagreement was filed.

DISCUSSION

This Court may review a Veterans Court decision on 

“all relevant questions of law, including interpreting 

constitutional and statutory provisions” and may set aside 

any regulation or interpretation thereof that is “(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not 

in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional 

right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of 

statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or in 

violation of a statutory right; or (D) without observance of 

procedure required by law.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). 

Except to the extent that an appeal from a CAVC decision 

presents a constitutional issue, we “may not review (A) a 

challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to 

a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular 

case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); Mayfield, 499 F.3d at 1321.

We recognize that the Appellant is acting pro se. We 

apply the principle that “pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed.” Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9–10 (1990); 

Case: 15-7070 Document: 17-2 Page: 5 Filed: 10/01/2015
6 SCHELLINGER v. MCDONALD

Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 

(en banc).

Mr. Schellinger filed a statement with the court on 

September 2, 2015, directing the court to various parts of 

the record, and providing five documents as attachments. 

We have accepted these materials as a Memorandum in 

Lieu of Oral Argument, and observe that the documents 

enclosed and referenced were before the VA. These filings 

have been duly considered.

The only issue is the factual question of whether a 

timely NOD was filed in 1970. Appellant’s Br. at 1. We 

discern no basis for reversing the CAVC’s conclusion, 

which was based on the presumption of administrative 

correctness, and the undisputed finding that Mr. Schellinger made no inquiry until 2007. 

No constitutional or statutory issues are present. 

Since the only issues raised are questions of fact, the 

appeal is dismissed.

No costs.

DISMISSED

Case: 15-7070 Document: 17-2 Page: 6 Filed: 10/01/2015