Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-07113/USCOURTS-ca13-14-07113-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Philip L. Rice
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PHILIP L. RICE,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-7113

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-1083, Chief Judge Bruce E. 

Kasold.

______________________ 

Decided: January 12, 2015

______________________ 

PHILIP L. RICE, of Seymour, Tennessee, pro se. 

NATHANAEL B. YALE, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department 

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

With him on the brief were JOYCE R. BRANDA, Acting 

Assistant Attorney General, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., 

Director, and ALLISON KIDD-MILLER, Assistant Director. 

Of counsel on the brief were DAVID J. BARRANS, Deputy 

Case: 14-7113 Document: 19-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/12/2015
2 RICE v. MCDONALD

Assistant General Counsel, and MARTIN J. SENDEK, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of 

Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

Before DYK, O’MALLEY, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Phillip L. Rice appeals from a decision of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the “Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed a 2012 decision 

by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the “Board”) denying 

an effective date earlier than May 30, 2002, for the veteran’s benefits. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Rice is a Vietnam-era veteran who served in the 

Navy from August 30, 1971, to January 23, 1973. In 1984, 

the veteran submitted a claim for benefits for a psychiatric disorder, including schizophrenia, which was denied by 

the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) Regional Office 

(“RO”). The veteran did not appeal the determination, and 

it became final. 

On May 30, 2002, the veteran filed a claim to reopen 

the 1984 claim on the ground of new and material evidence. The Board found that there was new and material

evidence and granted the veteran’s claim for service 

connection, assigning a permanent 100% disability evaluation with an effective date of May 30, 2002. 

The Board ultimately denied a service connection date 

earlier than May 30, 2002, relying on 38 U.S.C. § 5110 

and 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The Veterans Court affirmed the 

Board’s decision.

DISCUSSION

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, we have jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans Court on issues of law but 

Case: 14-7113 Document: 19-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/12/2015
RICE v. MCDONALD 3

not on issues of fact or application of law to fact. See 

Morris v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1346, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 

(citing Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 

2002) (en banc)). 

38 U.S.C. § 5110 provides that “the effective date of 

an award based on . . . a claim reopened after final adjudication . . . shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of 

application therefor.” 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); see 38 C.F.R. 

§ 3.400. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(q) provides that where “[n]ew 

and material evidence . . . other than service department 

records” is “[r]eceived after final disallowance[,]” the 

effective date is the “[d]ate of receipt of [the] new claim or 

[the] date [the] entitlement arose, whichever is later.” 38 

C.F.R. § 3.400(q). 

The Veterans Court correctly interpreted the law as 

providing that the “earliest effective date for an award 

based on a claim to reopen [based on new and material 

evidence] is the date of that claim, not the date of the 

original claim.” App. 1; see Comer v. Peake, 552 F.3d 1362, 

1370 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The earliest effective date for an 

award based on a veteran's request to reopen a final 

decision based on new and material evidence is generally 

the date that the application to reopen was filed.”) (citation omitted). The veteran alleges errors in the 1984 

decision, but that is not pertinent to assigning an effective 

date of a claim to reopen based on new and material 

evidence. 

We note that, based on the veteran’s statement that 

“[t]he VA was grossly in error in the Aug. 1984 decision,” 

App. 44, a separate claim for clear and unmistakable 

error (“CUE”) was also opened. The RO denied the CUE 

claim on December 21, 2010, and the veteran did not 

appeal the denial of the CUE claim. There is no basis for 

claiming that the Veterans Court erred in refusing to 

consider the veteran’s CUE claim in this proceeding.

Case: 14-7113 Document: 19-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/12/2015
4 RICE v. MCDONALD

Under the circumstances, the veteran raises no legal 

issues within our jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 14-7113 Document: 19-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/12/2015