UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 04-325
W EBSTER D. H ANEY , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. R. J A M ES N I C HOL S ON , 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 May

23, 2006 Dec ided Aug ust 22, 2006 )
Kenneth M. Carpenter , of Topeka , Kansa s, argued the c ase f or the a ppellant. Francis M. Jack son , o f P or

tla nd , M a ine , w a s o n th e br ie f f or the a pp e lla nt.
W illiam L . Puchnick

, wi th w ho m Tim S

. Mc Cla in , G e ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Brian B. Rippel , D e pu ty As sis tant G e ne ra l Co un se l, all of Washington, D.C., we re on the brief f or the a ppellee.
Be fore GREENE, Chief Judge , and HAG ELand SCHOEL EN, J ud ge s. HAGEL , Judge : Webster D. Ha ney appea ls through c ounsel a F ebrua ry 20, 2004, Boa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls ( B oa

rd ) d e c isi on

in w hic h th e B oa

rd (1 ) de nie d his c la im t o r e op e n a pr e vio us ly and fina lly disallowed claim for service c onnection for deg ener ative ar

thritis of the cer

vical spine, (2) de nied his claim for service connec tion f or char ley horses (that is, muscle cra mps) of the leg s and thighs, including as sec ondary to deg ener ative ar

thritis of the cer

vical spine, an d (3) de nied

e n t i t l e m e n t t o ani n c r e a s e d ( c o mp e n s a

b l e ) r a t i n g f

o r a s c ar o nt h e l e f tt h u mb

. B e c a

u s e M r
. H a n e y, in his briefs, limits his arg uments to the claim fo r injuries re lated to his back disorde r, the Court deems a bandoned a

ny appea l as to the other c laims before the B oard. Gr iv ois v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 136, 138 (1994) ( holding that issues or claims not a rg ued on appe al ar e conside red a bandoned) . The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252( a) an d 7 2 66(a) to reviewthe Fe bruar y 2004 B oa rd de c ision . T he Court

ho lds tha t w he n a B oa rd me mbe r at a

he ari nge xer c ise s d isc re tio n to leave the re cord ope n for the a ppellant to submit evidence pursuant to 38 C.F.R § 20.709 (2005), no2

decision m ay b e i s s ued without first providing the appe llant (and his re prese ntative) notice of the specific date the r ecor d will close for that purpose. The Court will therefor e vac ate the F ebrua ry 20, 2 0 0 4 , Boa

rd dec ision and remand the matter for further adjudication consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKG ROUND Mr. Hane y

serve d on active duty in the U.S. A rmy from September 1940 to F ebrua ry 1946. See R ec o rd(R

. ) a t1 7

. I n J u n e 19 7 5 , h e fi l ed an ap p l i ca t i o n fo r di s ab i l i t y co mp en s at i o n , cl ai m i n g,
a mo n g o th e r th in g s , th a t he h a d s u f f e r e d f r o m " b a c k

tr o u b le " b e g inn in g in

1 9 4 2

. R. a t 1 1 2

. T h e n e xt month, a VA re g ional office denied his cla im for servic e conne ction for a back c ondition. R . at 118, 120. Mr. Hane y

responde d by

submitt ing statements from fe llow service men asser ting that his bac k

c o n d i t i o nw a s c o n n e c t e d

t o a c ar a c c i d e n ti nw h i c h h e w a s i n v o l v e d i n1 9 4 2

. R

. a t1 2 8

- 3 5

. In Dec em b er 1975, the re g ional office issued another decision and c oncluded that the e vidence submitt ed wa s "insuff

icient to establish service connec tion for [ a] back condition." R. at 149. That decision wa s not appea led. I n Se pte mbe r 2 00 1, Mr . H ane y fi le d a c la im f or se rv ic e c on ne c tio n f

or " art hr iti s in [his ] spine" and mus cl e cr am p s in his legs se condar y to his arthritis. R. at 188. I n Marc h 2002, the reg ional office treated that claim as a claim to reope n an d d en ied it "be cause evidenc e submitted [was] not new and material." R. at 212. The re g ional office also denied se rvice co nnection for muscle cr amps. Id . Mr. Hane y appea led that dec ision. R. at 234; 239-53; 255-56. I n September 200 3, Mr. Hane y

participated in a video c onfer ence hear ing be fore a member of the B oard. R. at 263-87. Duringthe cour se of that he aring , Mr. Hane y ' s counsel stated that a private phy sician, Dr. S u s an L ee , h adl i n k edM r. Ha n ey 's b ac k i n j u ry t o h i s i n -s er v i ce ca r ac ci d en t

. R

. at 2 8 0

. M r. Ha n ey 's counsel fur

ther stated that he would g et a medic al opinion from Dr. L ee c oncer ning the link between Mr. Hane y ' s injury

and the c ar a ccide nt and would supply it to the B oard. Id. The B oard me mber informed Mr. Hane y and his c ounsel that Mr. Hane y had two options, he could either g et the medica l opinion hims elf a

nd submit i t, which Mr. Ha ney was t old would be fa ster, or that VA had a n obligation to procure the opinion and would do so when provided the pertinent information. R. at 284. The B oard me mber a sked Mr. Hane y ' s counsel which method he would pre fer , and his counsel stated: " We'll take car e of it." R. at 284-85.3

Th e B oa rd , in the F e br ua ry 20 04 de c isi on he re on

a pp e a l, d e te rm ine d th a t Mr . H ane y ' s c la im for se rvice connec tion for deg ener ative ar thritis of the cer

vical spine ha d been de nied in 1975 and that he had not a

ppeale d that deter

mination. R. at 2. The Boar d conclude d that Mr. Hane y had not submitt ed new and materia l e vidence since the 1975 dec ision reg ardinghis cervic al-spine disorde r
and that mu sc le c ra

mps of the le g s and thi g hs " we re no t inc ur re d in or a g g ra vate d b y se rv ic e ." R.

a t 3. In that de c isi on , th e B oa rd a lso no te d th a t th e me dic a l ne xus e vid e nc e re g ard ingthe c e rv ic a lspine condition discussed five months e arlier at the September 2003 video confe renc e hear ing ha d not been submitted. R. at 8. I t concluded that, in light of the fac t that Mr. Hane y had not submitted additional evidenc e, " VA ca n only do so much to he lp him substantiate his alleg ation. And when, as her e, he ha d failed to c ooperate with VA' s eff orts to obtain addi t i o n al m edical evidence

c on c e rn inghis c a se
. . . th e B oa rd ' s d e c isi on

to g o a he ad and deci de his a

pp e a l is no t un du ly prej ud ici al. " Id

. On a pp e a l, M r. Ha

ne y a sse rt s th a t th e B oa

rd e rr e d w he n it

iss ue d a de c isi on on

his c la im befor e re ceivingthe medica l evidence that his counsel stated he would provide a fter the September 2003 video conf

ere nce he aring . Appellant' s Br ief (B r.) at 2. He conte nds that the Boa rd violated 38 C.F.R. § 3.158(a) (2005) be cause i t i s s u ed i ts opinion before the Boa rd had r ece ived the additional evidenc e it had requested and, there fore , deeme d his claim abandoned bef ore one y ear

had elapse d since the Septe mber 2003 video c onfer ence
. Id. at 4. He f urther a sserts that VA e rre d by fa ili ngto n oti fy

him un de r 3 8 U .S. C. § 51 03 (a ) o f wh ic h po rt ion s o f t he e vid e nc e VAwo uld

ob ta in for hi m af

t er t h e September 2003 vide o confe renc e. Id . at 5-8. Spec ifically , he conte nds that the member ' s r e qu e s t to h is c o u n s e l to p r o v id e th e me d ic a l o p in io n f r o m D r
. L e e d id n o t satisfy the Se c re tary ' s d

uty to no tif

y him wh a t po rt ion of inf

or ma tio n a nd e vid e nc e , if

any , th e Se c re tary

wo uld attempt to obtain on his behalf. Id . at 7. Th e Se c re tary

a sse rt s th a t th e F e br

ua ry 20 04 B oa

rd de c isi on sh ou ld be a ff

ir me d b e c a us e it

wa s n ot c le arl y

e rr on e ou s and was su ppor te d b y an a de qu a te state me nt o f r e a so ns or ba se s. Secre tary ' s Br . at 9. He a

rg ues t hat the B oard c orre ctly deter mined that new a

nd materia l evidence ha d n ot b e e n s ub mit te d a nd tha t V A c omplied

wi th i ts n oti c e ob lig a tio ns purs ua nt t o 3 8 U .S. C. § 5103(a)

. Id . at 10-13. F inally , he conte nds that Mr. Hane y has failed to de monstrate that any err or committed was pre

judicial. Id . at 13-20.4

The S ecr etar

y also asser

ted at oral arg ument that the Board was not require d to set a de adline for Mr. H aney

to submit the re quested medic al op i n i o n fr o m Dr. L ee f or seve ral re asons: (1) Mr. Hane y –not the Boa

rd Member–raise d the i ssue of submitt ing new evidence; (2) Mr. Ha ney assumed responsibility

to obtain the evidenc e; (3) the Bo ar d M em ber infor med Mr. Ha

ney that Boa rd decisions had be en issued, on the avera g e, in approx imately four months time; (4) the B oard Me mber waited f ive months before issuing a decision; (5) Mr. Hane y did not communicate with the B oard

or re quest more time to submit the requeste d evidenc e; and ( 6) 38 C.F.R. § 20.709 sets the normal time to submi t evidence at 60 day s.

II. AN AL YSI S Mr. Hane y

relies on 38 C.F .R. § 3.158(a) as authority to support his contention that the Boa rd

err ed by not allowing him a f

ull y ear to submi t ev i dence befor e adjudicating his cla im. Under § 3.158, if a claimant does not f urnish evidenc e reque sted by the reg ional office within one y ear of the re quest, VA is require d to consider the claim abandoned and need take no fur ther a ction absent th e f il in g o f a ne w claim. See 38 C.F .R. § 3 .1 58 ; se e als o H ur d v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 449, 451 (2 00 0) ; W am ho ff v . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 517, 521 ( 1996). Section 3.158 is a regulation fo r gen er al application to claims pending be fore the re g ional office . Mr. Hane y ' s claim, however, wa s on appea l before the B oard w hen the B oard me mber

re qu e ste d th a t Mr

. Ha

ne y su bmi t fu rt he r e vid e nc e
. F ur

the rm or e , the B oa

rd did no t tr e a t hi s c la im as aba ndoned beca

use it a ctually adjudicate d and denied his c laim. For those rea sons, the Court does not find § 3.158 to be applica ble in this case. The c ontrolling re g ulation here is 38 C.F.R. § 20.709, which specif ically applied to t he proce dural c ircumstance s of this case reg arding what a Boa rd member is r equire d to do in a situation wher e the r ecor d is left open so that additional evide nce ma y be submitted

. A s p ecific regulation controls over

a g ener al one. Se e Po gu e v . W est , 1 3 V e t.Ap p. 36 8, 37 3 ( 20 00 ); Ro yv . B ro wn , 5 Vet.App. 554, 556- 57 (1993). Se c tio n 2 0. 70 9 r e a ds a s f

oll ow s: I f i t a pp e ars duri ng the c ours e of a he ari ng that add iti on a l evi de nc e wo uld a ssi st i n the re view of the questions at i ssue, t he presiding Me mber m ay direc t that the rec ord be lef t open so that the appellant and his or her repr esentative may obtain the desire d5

evidenc e. The presiding Member will deter mine the per iod of t ime during which the rec ord will stay

open, conside ring the amount of ti me esti mated by the appe llant or repr esentative as nee ded to obtain the evide nce and other fa ctors adduc ed duringthe hear ing. O rdinarily , the per i o d will not ex cee d 60 day s, and will be as short a s possible in order that a

ppellate c onsiderat io n

o f th e c a s e n ot be unnec essar ily delay ed. 38 C.F.R. § 20.709 (empha sis added). The regulation clear ly allows a Board member who deter mines "dur ing the course of a he aringthat additional evidenc e would assist in the revie w of the questions at issue," the discretion to leave t h e re cord open; thus the member " m ay direc t that the

rec ord be left open so that the claimant may obtain the desired evidenc e." Howeve r, once the B oard member c o n d

u c ti n g th e h e ar in g d o e s e xe r c is e th a t d is c r e ti o n , an d le a v e s th e r e c o r d o p e n f o r the submissi on of additi onal evidence, the regulation require s that the B oard me mber " will deter mine the pe ri od

of tim e duri ngwh ic h th e re c or d w ill sta y op e n. " I n c on tr a st t o th e pe rm iss ive " may " in the first sentenc e of § 20.709, the "w ill" of the se cond sente nce is mandatory

. The Court notes that the B oard me mber c onducting the hear ing did not cite to, or in any way acknow ledg e, the a

pplicability

of § 20.709 during the hear ing or in his decision. Howeve r, the B oard is bound by

VA re g ulations, of whi ch § 20.709 is one. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 4( c ); 38 C.F .R. § 2 0. 10 1( a ) ( 20 05 ); see also Gome z v. Principi , 17 Vet.App. 369, 372 (2003). In this case, whe n the Boa rd member

–conductingthe h ea ring in a consc ientious and dilige nt manner–de termined that further evidenc e wa s nece ssary and thus reque sted that Mr. Ha ney submit a medical opinion linking his in-service au tomobile accide nt to his current c ervic al-spine c ondition, the Boar d member exercised hi s d is c r e ti o nto le a v e th e r e c o r d o p e na s p e r

mi tt e d b y § 2 0

. 7 0 9

. T h e B o ar d

me mb e r, howeve r, fa iled to follow the mandatory lang uag e of the regulation, which req u i re s that he " will deter mine the per iod of time during which the r ecor d will stay open." Rather, he lef

t the rec ord open for a n indeterminate amount of time, as he se t no deadline a s to when the e vid ence was to be submitt ed. Similarly , the B oard e rre d in issuing a f inal decision without first setting a deadline specify ing the date by

which the r equeste d evidenc e wa s to be submitted, and providing Mr. Hane y and his repr esentative rea sonable notice there of as r equire d by the re g ulation. The Sec reta

ry asser ted at oral arg ument that, in the absence of the Board membe r' s setting

a de a dli ne , th e la st se nte nc e of § 20. 70 9 pro vid e s tha t, or din ari ly , a d e a dli ne wi ll n ot e xce e d 6 0 d a y s, i.e, that the 60-day

period is essentially

the def ault deadline. T he Court finds otherw ise. The 60- day6

time frame is n o t a d e f

a u lt d e a d li n e th a t c o n tr o ls in th e a b s e n c e o f a s e t d e a d li n e
. T h e u s e of the

wo rd " or din ari ly " i ndic a te s th a t 60 da y s w ou ld u su a lly

or ty pic a lly be a re a so na ble tim e fr a me to l ea v e t h e r ec o rdo p en
. I no t h er w o r d s , i t s e r v e s as a gu i d el i n e f o r a Bo ar d

m em b er i nm ak i n g a deter mination as to an appropr iate time per iod to keep the r eco rd open; it is il lustrative but not binding. The use of the ter m "or dinarily " c erta inly

does not requir e that, in the abse nce of the B oard Member se tting a de adline, 60 day s is the mandatory time frame

. Additionally , the principle that VA is r equire d to provide fa ir proce ss in the adjudication of

c la im s is w e ll e s ta

b li s h e d in th is Co urt' s case law. Se e Au sti n v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 547 ( 1994); Thu rb e r v . B ro wn , 5 Vet.App. 119 ( 1993). In Au sti n , th e Court state d: The Court pre mised its holdi ng in Thurber , in pa rt , u po n c on sid e ratio ns of

fa ir proce ss. The Supreme Court c ase of Gonzales v. United States , 348 U.S. 407 (1955), ref ere nced in Thurber , is pe rhaps most a ptly illust rative of this fa ir proce ss principle. I n Gonzales the Sup re me Court he ld t hat de sp ite the sil e nc e of

the a pp lic a ble statut e and re g ulations as to a par t icular pr ocedur al re quirement, such r equire ment was imp lic it i n th e statut e and re g ulatio ns wh e n " vie we d a g a ins t our un de rl y ingc on c e pts of proc edura l regularity

and b a s ic fa ir

p lay ." Thurber , 5 Vet.App. at 123 (quoting Gonzales , 348 U.S. at 412) (e mphasis added)

.
Au sti n , 6 Vet.App. at 551 ( emphasis in orig inal). Althoug h the proc edura l circumstanc es in Au sti n and Thurber

we re dif fe re nt t ha n th os e in thi s ca se , the pr inc ipl e of fa ir pr oc e ss e nunc ia te d in

tho se
case s applies with equal f orce here

. When the Boa

rd member implicitl y exercised his discr etion pursuant to § 20.709 to ke ep the

rec ord open f

or the submi ssion of further evidence, the regulation require d him to set a dea dline for

su bmi tti ngtha

t e vid e nc e . Wh e n h e fa ile d to do so , the B oa rd , und e r the pr inc ipl e s o f f a ir pr oc e ss, could not adjudicate Mr. Hane y ' s claim without first setting a rea sonable de adli n e an d providing notice of that deadline. The require ment to se t a deadline and notify the claimant of

that deadline befor e a de cision is render ed is implicit i n the re g ulation when " viewed a g ainst [t he] und er l y i ng
conce pts of proce dural regularity and basic fair play ." 6 Vet.App. at 551. I n light of the fa ct that the Boa rd member

did not c omply with the § 20.709 mandatory require ment to set a re asonable deadline by wh ic h th e e vid e nc e wa s to be su bmi tte d, the B oa

rd wa s r e qu ir e d t o se t su c h a de a dli ne a nd

to

no tif y Mr . H ane y

that he ha d a

se t pe ri od

of tim e in wh ic h to subm it the e vid e nc e be fo re his c la im could be a djudicated. The failure to do so violated fair pr ocess.7

I n summary , the Court holds that, when a Boa rd member

at a he aringexercises discr etion to l e a ve the re c or d o pe n f

or the a pp e lla nt t o s ub mit

e vid e nc e purs ua

nt t o § 20 .7 09 , th a t me mbe r m us t set a de adline as to how longthe re cord w ill remain open. I f such a deadline is not set at the hea ring in violation of § 20.709, fair proc ess re quires the B oard to subseque ntly set a de adline by

which the

rec ord will close and notify the appe llant of that dea dline befor e the claim can be adjudicate d. The Court will therefor e vacate the Fe bruar y 2004 Boa

rd dec ision and remand the matter so that the Boa rd ca n set a date by which Mr. Hane y must submit t he re quested medic al opinion from Dr. L ee. Reg ardingt h e S ec retary ' s assertions at ora l argument and re counted a bove as to why

the Secre tary believes that the Board was not require d to set a dea dline for the submission of evidenc e befor e adjudicating Mr. H aney ' s claim, we find none of the m convincing . The Court ac knowledg es that Mr. Hane y ' s repr esent at i v e could have bee n more dilig ent in obtaining the promised medica l opinion, or in c orre sponding with the Boa rd reg ardingwhether

such an opinion wa s to be submitted. Howeve r, the B oard must follow VA r eg ulations and in this case none of M r. Ha n ey 's actions or ina c tio ns e xcu se or

ne g a te the Boa

rd me mbe r' s f

a ilure to s e t a

de a dli ne , a s is re qu ir e d p ur su a nt t o § 20.709. Finally , althoug h the B oard me mber fa iled t o s et a d ea d line, he neve rtheless a cted diligently in expl aining to Mr. Hane y what wa s neede d to develop his claim and c onducte d the hear ing in a

thoroug h and g ener ally

helpful manne r. Mr. Hane y

also contends that the S ec re tary violated the duty

to notify under the Veter ans Cla ims As sis tanc e Ac t ( c od if ie d in pa rt a t 38 U. S.C. §§ 51 02 , 5 10 3, and 51 03 A) by

fa ili ngto a

pp ri se him of wh ic h p or

tio ns of the inf or ma tio n a nd e vid e nc e , if

any , th e Se c re tary

wo uld a tte mpt to o bta in

on his be half. I n its re cent deci s i o n i n Mayfield v . Nicholson, the U.S. Court of Appea ls for the F e de ra l Cir c uit (F e de ra l Cir c uit ) h e ld t hat V A' s d

uty to n oti fy " is n ot s a tis fi e d b y

va ri ou s p os tdecisional c ommunications from which a claimant mi g ht have been a ble to infer w hat evidenc e the VA found la cking in the claimant' s prese ntation." 444 F .3d 1328, 1333 (F ed. Cir. 2006). In support of that hol ding, the Fe dera l Circuit rea soned t hat not ice under t he Vetera ns Claims Assis tance Act

is r e qu ir e d to have dif

fe re nt c on te nts fr om t

he po st- de c isi on a l no tic es, and it i s desig ned for

differ ent purposes–to e nsure that the c laimant' s case is presente d to the initial decisionmaker with whatever support is availabl e an d t o ensure that the claimant under stands what evide nce w ill be obtained by the VA and what evidence mus t be pr ov ide d b y

the c la ima

nt.8

Id. To the extent that Mr. Hane y is arg uing th at t he B oard me mber fa iled to provide him notice

c omp lia nt w ith 38 U. S.C. § 51 03 (a ) duri ng the Se pte mbe r 2 00 3 B oa rd he ari ng , a

nd tha t 38 U. S.C. § 5103(b) a llowed him one y ear to submit such evide nce from t he date of t he S eptember 2003 notice, that argument is unavailing . Notwithstanding the fac t that the Boa rd member during the September 2003 Boa rd hear ing informed Mr. Hane y that he was providinghim section 5103(a) notice re g arding ho w t o s ub sta

nti a te his c la im, any su c h no tic e pr ov ide d a t that sta g e in t he pr oc e ss w ou ld c on sti tut e postdecisional notice in violation of Ma y fie ld, su pra . Reg ardle ss of how the B oard me mber styled the inf or ma tio n th a t Mr . H ane y

wa s p ro vid e d in

the Se pte mbe r 2 00 3 h e ari ng , s uc h inf or ma tio n d id not constitute section 5103(a) notice. Finally , Mr. Hane y

reque sts rever s al o f the B oard de cision and re mand of the matter. "[W] here the B oard ha s incorre ctly applied the law , failed to provide an ade quate state ment of

rea sons or bases f

or i ts deter

minations, or where the rec ord is otherwise ina dequate , a re mand is the app rop ri ate rem edy ." Tuc k e r v . W est , 1 1 V e t.A

pp . 3 69 , 3 74 ( 1 99 8) ; se e Hi c k s v . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 417, 422 (1995). Rema

nd is also the appropr iate re medy when th e Boa

rd fa ils to ensure prope r development of

the claim. Po nd

v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 341, 346 ( 1999). Mr. Han ey h as not demonstrated r ever sible err or in this case.

III . C ON CL USI ON On consideration of the fore g oing, the Fe bruar y 20, 2004, Boa

rd decision that deni ed M r. Hane y ' s claim to reope n a pre viously and fina lly

disallowed cl ai m fo r ser vice c onnection for deg ener ative ar

thritis of the cer

vical spine is VACATED a nd that matter is REMANDED f or fur ther adjudication consistent with this opinion.