Thi s version includ es an err ata dated 20Dec 04 - e
UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 03-1282
F AUNDA R. H A T CH , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

On Ap pe a l f ro m th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(Argued Oc tober 5, 2004 De cided De cembe r 2, 2004 )

Kenneth M. Carpenter , of Topeka , Kansa s , ar gu ed the ca use, and Denton M. H

atch , of Spa nis h F or k, Ut ah, wa s o n th e ple a din g fo r t he a pp e lla nt. Erika E. Liem , wi th wh om Tim S. Mc Cla in , Ge ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , Assistant Gene ral Counsel; and Brian B. Rippel , Deputy Assistant Gener al Counsel, all of Washington, D.C., wer e on the plea ding f

or the a ppellee.
Be fore I VERS, Chief Judge , and KASOL D and HA GEL , Judges

. KASOL D, Judge : Mrs. Fa unda Hatch, t he surviving s pouse of World W ar I Iveter an My ron Hatch, a ppeals throug h counsel fr om a May 13, 2003, Boa rd of Ve tera

ns' Appea ls (Boa

rd) de cision that denied her cla im for enha nced de pendenc y

and indemnity

compensation (enhanc ed DI C) under section 1311(a )(2) of title 38, United S tates C ode. The Boar d denied he r cla im on the basis that her husband had not be en eva luated as 10 0 % disabled as a result of a

service -conne cted disability for at l east eight continuous y ear s prior to his death. Mrs. Hatch see ks reve rsal and a rg ues that (1) there is a rea sonable medic al proba bility , based on a medical opinion obtained after Mr. Hatch' s death, that he wa s totally disabled for the eig ht y ear s prior to his death, and (2) the Boa rd was require d under Hix v. G ober , 225 F.3d 1377 ( Fe d. Cir. 2000) [hereinaf ter Hix II ], t o consider that newly

acquir ed medical opinion and de termine de n o v o wh et h er Mr. Hatch " hy pothetically " c ould have be en2

awa rded a 100% disability

rating for the e ight y ear s prior to his death. Mrs. Hatch furthe r ar g ues that her c laim is an i n d epende nt claim that is not dependent on the be nefits that her husband had be en
rec eiving

. The S ecr etar

y urg es t he C ourt to aff

irm the Board' s decision and argues that the B oard

corr ectly relied upon a

VA Ge nera l Counsel prece dent opinion that prec luded con sideration of

e vid e nc e no t c on ta ine d w ith in t he ve te ra n' s c la ims fi le

. He fu

rt he r a rgue s th a t th e B oa

rd c or re c tly denied t h e en h ance d DI C claim beca use Mr. Hatch had not submitted his claim for ser vice

connec tion eight or

more y ear s prior to his death and had not be en rate d as 100% ser vice- connec ted disabled for

the eig ht y ear s immediately prec eding death. The S ecr etar y additionally argues t hat the Boa rd consider ed all re levant evide nce of rec ord and pr ovided an adequate statement of re asons or bases f or its findings a

nd conclusions. For the rea sons se t f orth below, the Court will set aside the decision of the B oard a

nd rema nd the matter f

or fur ther proc eeding s consistent with this opi nion.

I. BACKG ROUND Mr. Hatc h serve d in the United States Army from Oc tober 1943 to March 1946. Re cord ( R.)

a t 18 . O n Jun e 6, 19 94 , he fi le d a for ma l c la im f

or se rv ic e c on ne c tio n f

or , in te r a lia , p os t- tr a

umatic stress disorder

(PTSD) (R. at 78-81) ; the claim was g rante d by a VA reg ional office (RO) and a 10% disability rating was a ssigne d initially (R. at 147-49) and subsequently incre ased to 70% , eff ective as of the date of his orig inal claim (R. at 202-07). I n August 1999, the RO gr anted a n incre ased rating to 100%, eff

ective July

27, 1998, the date on w hich Mr. Hatch had submitt ed his claim for a n incre ased r ating . R. at 248-50. Mr. Hatch died on De cembe r 23, 2001. R. at 267. I n J anuar y 2002, Mrs. Hatc h s u b m i t t ed a cla im for death benef its as the surviving spouse

. R

. at 2 6 1 -6 5

. L at er

t h at s am e m o n t h , t h e R O gr an t ed , i n t er al i a, s er v i ce co n n ec t i o n fo r Mr

. Ha t ch 's

cause of death, ent i tling Mrs. Hatch to regular de pendenc y and indemnity

compensation (regular DI C), but the RO denied entitlement to enhanc ed DI C. R. at 256-59. Mrs. Hatch a ppeale d the denial of enha nced D I C to the Boar d. R. at 294. Thereaf ter, Mrs. Hatch submitted to the Boar d a June 2002 letter fr om Dr. Da

wson Hedg es, who stated his be lie f, b as ed on his prior eva luations of Mr. Hatch, " that there is a rea sonable medical probability that My ron Hatch had a

total service -conne cted dis a bil ity e ig ht y e ars pr ior

to h is de a th. " R. at 31 1. Th e B oa rd de nie d M rs . H a tc h' s c la im b e c a us e Mr. Hatc h had not been rated by VA as 100% di sabled for his service -conne cted PTSD for the eig ht3

y e ars imm e diate ly

pr e c e din g his de a th. R. at 10- 12

. I n de nyingthe c la im, the B oa rd re fu se d to consi d e r th e n e w ly p r e s e n te d e v id e n c e f r o m D r
. H e d g e s b e c a

u s e th e B o ar d w a s b o u nd by VA G e n e r a l C o u n s e l P r e c e d e n tO p i n i o n 9

- 2 0 0 0 ( D e c
. 8 , 2 0 0 0 ) , w h i c h o p i n e d t h a tane n h an c e d

D IC claim could not be awa

rded based on new evidenc e submitt ed afte r the death of a vete ran. R. at 8- 13. This appea l followed.

II. AN AL YSI S As an initial matter , the Court will address the que stion of whether this case is af

fec ted by a stay the Unit ed S tates C ourt of Appeals for the Fe dera l Circuit issued in National Orgization of Ve te ra ns ' Ad

v oc ate s, In c
. v
. Se c re tar

yof V e te ra ns Af fai rs , 314 F.3d 1373, 1381- 82 (F ed. Cir. 2003) [hereinaf ter NOVA II

]. I n NOVA II

, the Fe dera l Circ uit stay ed the proce ssing of claims for e nhance d DI C be ne fi ts w he re a

surv ivi ngc la ima

nt s ou g ht t o re op e n a de c e a se d ve te ra n' s pr e vio us ly and

fi na lly denied c laim for ser

vice connection with total disability rating on the grounds of new a nd materia l evidenc e. Id

. I n the i nstant case , during oral arg ument, counsel for both parties ag ree d that the stay does not aff

ect these proce eding s beca use Mrs. Hatch' s claim for e nhance d DI C was not an attempt to reope n her husba

nd' s claim; rather , it was an independe nt c laim of her ow n (albe it, in the view of the Secr etar

y , depende nt on Mr. Hatch' s claim). The Court ag ree s with the par ties that, for the r eason they submit, t he proc eeding s in this case ar e not stay ed. I t is important to summar ize the history of the rele vant law in e ffe ct during the pendenc y of t h i s c l a i m
. S e c t i o n 1 3 1 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) p r o v i d e s s u r v i v i n g s p o u s e s w i t h ane n h an c e m e n tt o t h e r e g u l a r D IC entitlement in the case of " a vete ran w ho at the time of de ath was in re ceipt of or was e ntit le d to

rece ive

. . . compensation for a se rvice -conne cted disability that was rated totally

disabling f

or a continuous period of at least eig ht y ear s immediately prec ed i n g d ea t h

. " 38 U .S.C. § 1311(a)(2) (empha sis added). This Court has inter prete d the " or wa s entitled to recei v e" l an g uag e of se ction 1311(a) (2) a s permitting a complet e re v iew of the veter an' s file and a deter mination de novo of whether the veter an hy

pothetically was entitled to be nefits sufficie nt to war rant enhanc ed DI C for the surviving spouse. Hi

xv . W est , 12 Vet.App. 138 (1999) [here inafter Hix I ]; Pa rd ue v . W est , No. 97-1789, 1999 WL 79512 (Ve t. App. Feb. 8, 1999), a ff 'd , Hix II , su pra . The Secre tary

appea led Hi

x I and Pardue to the Fe dera l Circuit, which consolidated the cases i n rende ring its decision in Hix II

.4

Th e F e de ra l Cir c uit

a ff ir me d b oth c a se s, ho ldi ngthat c la ima nts may e sta bli she nti tle me nt t o enhanc ed DI C benefits by showing t h at t h e veteran w as hy pothetically

entitled to rec eive a

total disability evaluation f

or the requisite period of time on the basis of a " de novo deter mination of the veter an' s disability , upon the entire ty of the re cord inc lud

ing any ne w e v ide nc e pr esen ted by the

sur v iv ing sp ous e ." Hix II

, 2 25 F .3 d at 1380 -8 1 (latte r em ph a sis a dd e d)

. Th is w a s th e fi rs t e xplic it jud ic ia l pr on ounc e me nt that new e vid e nc e c ou ld be pr e se nte d to th e Se c re tary fo r c on sid e ra

tio n in

a surv ivi ng sp ou se ' s c la im fo r e nh anc e d DI C. Th e Cou rt , h ow e ve r, no te s th a t Pardue involved the situation where the surviving spouse , afte r her veter an-husba

nd' s death, testified that the veter an had been a "ve ry , very

sick man" and fur

ther s u b m i t t ed to the RO new medic al evidenc e and la y statements in support of her claim for e nhance d DI C. See P ardue , 1999 WL 79512, at *2. Af te r the F e de ra l Cir c uit

iss ue d it s Hix II

decision, the VAGene ral Counsel issued a p r e c e d e n t o p in io n , w h ic h o p in e d th a t th e la n g uag e in Hi

x II reg ardingthe consider ation of new

e vid e nc e pr e se nte d b y

a surv ivi ngsp ou se in s up po rt of an en ha

nc e d DI C cla im wa s " ob ite r d ic tum " and ther efor e not binding on the Secre tary . VA Gen. Coun. Prec. 9- 2000 (De c. 8, 2000) [here inafter G. C. Pr e c . 9 -2 00 0]. T he B oa rd , in the c a se a t ba

r, re lie d up on thi s pr e c e de nt o pin ion in d e nyingMr s. Hatch' s enhanc ed DI C claim. R. at 8-13. Al so su bs e qu e nt t o th e F e de ra l Cir c uit ' s Hix II decision, the Sec reta

ry modified § 3.22, of title 38, Code of Fe dera l Reg ulations, the regulation implementing sec tion 1318(b) of title 38, United States Code. Section 1318(b) g overns the pr ovision of benefits for survivor s of veter ans who died fr om non -ser

vice- connec ted cause s and at the time of death wer e " in rec eipt of or e ntitled to rece ive" disability compensation for servic e-c onnecte d disabiliti es rated as totally disabling. Sec tion 1318( b) contains the same "or

was e nti t l ed t o re ce i ve" lang uag e as se ction 1311(a) (2) ( in terms of the duration of total disa

bility resulting from service -conne cted disability ), the section at i s s u e i n Hi x II and he re in. Th e Se c re tary ' s mod if ic a tio n, int e r a lia , re vis e d § 3 .2 2 to de fi ne e xpre ssl y the ph ra se "e ntitled to rece ive" as limited to the situation wher e bene fits were not awar ded " due solely to clear and unmistakable e rror

[C UE]" by

the ag ency , thus pr eventing the use of ne wly prese nted evidenc e to establ ish a hy

pothetical entitlement to DI C under sec tion 1318 in the place of the ac tual entitlement. See 65 F e d. Re g . 3 ,3 88 , 3 ,3 91 (Jan. 21 , 2 00 0) ; see also Livesay v. Principi , 15 Vet.App.5

165, 173-74 (2001) (en ba nc) ( quoting a

nd following standards s et fo rt h in Russell v. Principi , 3 Vet.App. 310, 313 ( 1992) (e n banc) , for a lleg ations of CUE in a B oard de cision). This regulatory

chang e wa s cha l l eng ed dire ctly in the Fe dera l Circuit in National Or ga niz ati on of V

e te ra ns ' Ad

v oc ate s, In c . v . S e c re tar yof V e te ra ns Af fai rs , 260 F.3d 1365 ( Fe d. Cir. 2001) [hereina fter NOVA I ]. I n that case , the Fe dera l Circ uit ge nera lly rec og nized the authority

of the Se c re tary

to i nte rp re t st a tut e s and

imp le me nt r e g ulatio ns , b ut i t fo un d the re g ulator y c ha ng e s to § 3.22 to be inconsist ent with § 20.1106, title 38, Code of Fe dera l Reg ulations, which provided that claims for e nhance d DI C benef its under section 1311(a) (2) "will be decided without reg ard to any pri or di sp os it io n o f tho se i ss ues du ri ng th e vet eran 's li fet im e." See NOVA I , 260 F.3d at 1379. The Fe dera l Circuit stay ed the processing of all claims for benefits under section 1318(b) a nd direc ted the Secr etar

y to harmonize his regulations under these s ections or provide a re asonable explanation why he chose to interpret the " entitled to rec eive" lang u age i n s ec tion 1318(b) in a manne r inconsistent w ith the same languag e in sec tion 1311(a)( 2). Id. at 1380-81. In response to NOVA I , th e Se c re tary

a tte mpt e d to ha

rm on ize his re g ulatio ns by mod if y ing § 20. 11 06 to r e qu ir e e xpre ssl y the adjudication of claims for enhance d DI C to be depende nt on and constra ined by prior adjudications of the ve tera n' s claims, there by

making adjudications of cl aims under both sec tions 1311(a) (2) and 1318(b) subject to the veter an' s prior cla ims, if any

. See B oa rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls Rules of Practice : Claim for Death Be nefits by Survivor, 67 Fe d. Reg . 16,3 0 9 , 16,317 (April 5, 2002). The re g ulatory chang e to § 20.1106 was challeng ed directly in the Fe dera l Circuit in NOVA II . In that de c isi on , th e F e de ra l Cir c uit a g a in g e ne ra lly

re c og nize d th e a

uth or ity of the Se c re tary

to i n t er p re ts t at u t es an d

p ro m u l gat e r egu l at i o n s
. T h e Fe d er al C i rc u i t , h o we v er , re j ec t edt h e S ec re t ary 's argu m en t that the " entitled to rec eive" lang uag e in sec tion 1311(a)( 2) wa s unambig uous, and specific ally

stated t h at t h e i s s ue had be en dec ided in Hix II and could not be r evisited. NOVA II , 314 F.3d at 1378. The F eder al Circuit further held, upon review of the amended § 20.1106, that the Secre tary had fa iled in his obli g ation under NOVA I to harmonize the regulations under sec tions 1311(a)(2) a

nd 1318(b), a

nd the Fe dera l Circuit vacate d the cha ng es to § 20.1106. See NOVA II , 314 F.3d at 1381. Wit h reg ard to Mrs. Hatch' s claim for enhanc ed DI C, the state of the la w re verte d back to a conflict be tween ( 1) the holding in Hix II that enhance d DIC cl ai m s under se ction6

1311(a)(2 ) could be adjudicate d on new e vidence submitt ed posthumously and, under

§ 20.1106, "w ithout reg ard" t o p ri or adjudications of the veter an' s claims, and (2) G.C. Prec. 9- 2000, which barr ed conside ration of ne w evidenc e. I n the case on appea l, the Boa rd based its denial of

Mrs. Hatc h' s claim on the fa ct that it was bound by G.C. Prec. 9-2000, which had reje cted as obiter dictum the lang uag e in Hix II that require d the Secr etar

y to accep t newly

submitt ed evide nce to pr ove an e nhance d DI C claim based on a veter an' s hy

pothetical entitlement to be nefits. I t is well established that, althoug h the Boa rd is bound by the pre cede nt opinions of the VA Gene ral Counsel, this Court i s n o t s o b o u n d. See Theiss v. Principi , 18 Ve t.A

pp . 2 04 , 2 10 (2 00 4) ; Cottl e v. Principi , 14 Ve t.A pp . 3 29 , 3 35 (2 00 1) ; Sabonis v. Br own , 6 Ve t.A

pp . 4 26 , 4 29 (1 99 4) ; se e als o 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104(c) , 7261. The Court re views the Secre tary ' s interpre tation of l aw de novo. Se e Bu tts v . B ro wn , 5 Vet.App. 532, 539 ( 1993) (e n banc)

. The Sec reta

ry argues that this Court s h o u l d d isreg ard the purported dic tum in Hix II

. We disag ree beca

use the languag e in Hix II at issue her e is no t d i ct u m
. Although " [n] o controlling prec eden t ca n ari se f

rom di ctu m o n a q ues ti on no t b efor e th e cou rt ," Sullivan v. D ep t

. of Navy , 720 F.2d 1266, 1279 ( Fe d. Cir. 1983), " [w] hen an opinion issues for the Court, it is no t only

the

res u l t but also those portions of the opinion nece ssary to that result by

which we are bound." Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida , 5 17 U. S. 4 4, 67 (1 99 6) ; se e als o Bethea v . Derwinski , 2 Vet.App. 2 5 2 , 2 5 4 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ( h o ld in g th a t th is Co u rt is b o u n d b y F e d e r a l Ci r c u it p r e c e d e n t) . I n Pardue , the companion case in Hix II

, the claimant soug ht enhanc ed DI C benef its although the ve tera

n had neve r been a war ded ser

vice c onnection, and the Fe dera l Circuit remande d for c onsideration of ne w
e v i d e n c e , p o s t h u m o u s l y s u b m i t t e d , t h a t r e l a t e d t o t h e v e t e r an ' s m e d i c a l an d e mp l o ym e n t h i s t o r y. Pardue , 1999 WL 79512, at *2. Acc ording ly , the Hix II de c isi on re ste d, a t lea st i n p art , o n th e fa c ts of Pardue , and we hold that the require ment of Hix II t h a tV A a d

j u d i c a t e a c l a i m f o r e n h an c e d D IC based on a

revie w of the evidenc e of rec ord, "inc luding any new evidenc e pre sented by the surviving sp ou se ," c ann ot b e dic tum

. Finally , in NOVA II

, whe n the Secr etar

y attempted to re litigate the question whether the

" e nti tle d to re c e ive " langua g e in s e c tio n 1 31 1( a )( 2) wa s unambi g uo us , th e F e de ra l Cir c uit e xplic itl y reje cted the Sec reta

ry ' s impli cit argument that the Fe deral C i rc u i t h ad err ed in Hix II in i ts7

interpre tation of that lang uag e, thus implicitly aff irming its holding in Hix II

. See NOVA II

, 314 F.3d

a t 1 3 7 8

. T h i s C o u rti s b o u n d b y Hix II , and the issue cannot be r elitigated her e. See Bethea , su pr a . Be cause the VA Gene ral Counsel e rrone ously reje cted the holding of Hix II a s d ic tum , G .C. Prec. 9- 2000 is invalid and without force or ef fec t. See Snyde r

v. P r i n cipi , 15 Vet.App. 285, 292 (2001) ( invalidating G ener al Counsel prec edent opin i o n t h at is "plainly in conflict with [the

case law]"). A lthough the Boa rd wa s corr ect to adjudicate Mrs. Hatch' s claim under G .C. Prec. 9- 2000, see The iss , Cot tle , and Sa bo nis , a ll su pra , beca use the Court here in invalidates that prec edent opinion the Boa

rd' s decision in r eliance upon it c annot stand. Se e Bu tts , su pra ; se e als o 38 U. S.C. § 7261(b)( 2). The S ecr etar

y a ls o a r g u e s th a t M r s
. H a tc h is n o t e n ti tl e d to e n h an c e d

D I C b e c a

u s e her hu sb and fi le d his cl a im les s th an e ig ht y e ars imm e diate ly pr e c e din g his de a th, and

an e ff e c tiv e date of a claim can be no ear lier t han the date on which the claim is filed or the date entitlement arose , whicheve r is later. See 3 8 C. F

. R. § 3

. 4 0 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( 2 0 0 3 )

. T h is ar g u me n t i s s u b s u me d in a nd fore closed by

the Fe dera l Circuit's holding that a surviving spouse' s claim for e nhance d DI C does not rely upon a prior a djudication of a veter an' s claim for disability benef its and must be adjudicated based upon a

" de novo det erm in ati on of t he v ete ran's di sab il it y ." Hix II , 2 25 F .3 d at 13 79 -8 1; see als o 38 C.F.R. § 20.1106 (2001) ( su rvi ving spouse ' s claim for de ath bene fits "will be de cided wi thou t regard to any

pr ior dis po sit ion

of tho se iss ue s d

ur ingthe ve te ra

n' s li fe tim e " ). Thus , M rs
. Hatch' s claim for enhanc ed DI C must be adjudicate d de novo, without consideration of the eff ective date of he r h us ba nd ' s p ri or g ra nt o f s e rv ic e c on ne c ti on for PTSD or the date of

the or ig ina l c la im there for.

III . REM ED Y A ND CO NC LU SION Mr s. Hatc h s e e ks re ve rs a l w iththe C ou rt dire c tin g the awa rd of e nh anc e d D I C be ne fi ts; howe v e r , th e Se c r e ta

r y h a s n o t a d dr e s s e d

th e qu in te s s e n ti a l q

u e s ti o no f

f a c t: I s th e e v id ence
c on ta ine d in the ne wl y su

bmi tte d med ic a l re po rt su ff ic ie nt to co nc lud e that Mr. Hatc h h y po the tic a lly would have been entitled to a 100% service -conne cted disability rating for the e ntirety

of the e ight y ear s immediately

prec eding his death? Such fac tual deter minations cannot be made by this Court in the first instance. See Thompson v. Gober , 1 4 Vet .App . 1 87 , 1 88 (2 00 0) ; se e als o 38 U. S.C.8

§ 7261(c) . Acc ording ly , the dec ision of the Boa rd wil l be set aside a nd the matter r emande d for

re adjudi cation consistent with this opinion. See Buck linger , su

pra ; se e als o 3 8 U .S. C. § 7261(a) (3)( A). On re mand, Mrs. Hatch may prese nt a ny additional evidenc e and argument in support of the matters re manded, and the Board must consider any evidenc e and a

rg ument so prese nted. See Kay v. Principi , 16 Vet.App. 529, 534 ( 2002). The Court e x pects that t h e Secre tary will provide expeditious treatment of this matter on rema nd. See 38 U.S.C. § 7112. SET ASI DE and REMAND ED.