NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HELEN J. TURNER,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-7074

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 11-3745, Judge Coral Wong 

Pietsch.

______________________ 

Decided: September 12, 2013 

______________________ 

HELEN J. TURNER, of Tallahassee, Florida, pro se. 

AUSTIN M. FULK, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

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

With him on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Acting 

Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and SCOTT D. AUSTIN, Assistant Director. Of counsel 

on the brief were DAVID J. BARRANS, Deputy Assistant 
2 TURNER v. SHINSEKI

General Counsel, and SAVANNAH H. CONNALLY, Attorney, 

Office of the General Counsel, United States Department 

of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

Before RADER, Chief Judge, DYK, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges.

Per Curiam.

Helen J. Turner appeals from a decision of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans 

Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed a decision by the 

Board of Veterans Appeals (“Board”) denying her son 

Omar Turner entitlement to benefits. The Veterans 

Court correctly determined that the statute authorizes

benefits for children with birth defects who are born to 

female Vietnam veterans. See 38 U.S.C. § 1815. However, because the appellant does not contend that she is a 

Vietnam veteran, her son is not eligible for benefits under 

the statute. Therefore, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Appellant Helen J. Turner’s son, Omar Turner, suffers from ailments including infantile autism, juvenile 

arthritis, and lupus. Omar Turner’s father is a Vietnam 

veteran who served on active duty from December 1971 to 

December 1973. See 38 U.S.C. § 1831(2) (defining “Vietnam veteran”); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.815(c). Ms. 

Turner states that she is not a veteran, and has never 

been to Vietnam. 

In December of 2007, Ms. Turner filed a claim with 

the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) on her son’s 

behalf. She alleged, inter alia, that her son’s medical 

problems were due to his father’s exposure to Agent 

Orange in Vietnam. She sought entitlement to benefits 

under 38 U.S.C. § 1805, which authorizes benefits payable 

to “any child of a Vietnam veteran for any disability 
TURNER v. SHINSEKI 3

resulting from spina bifida suffered by such child,” and 38 

U.S.C. § 1815, which authorizes benefits payable to “the 

child of a woman Vietnam veteran,” see id. § 1811, for 

“any disability resulting from . . . covered birth defects,” 

see id. § 1815. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1812(a), § 1815

covers, with certain limitations not at issue here, those

birth defects identified by the Secretary as 

birth defects of children of women Vietnam veterans that

(1) are associated with the service of those 

veterans in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era; and

(2) result in permanent physical or mental 

disability. 

See id § 1812(a); see also § 1812 (b) (stating limitations).

The VA regional office denied Ms. Turner’s claim. Ms. 

Turner filed a Notice of Disagreement, and the regional 

office confirmed its denial. In December of 2009, Ms. 

Turner appealed to the Board.

In November of 2011, the Board denied Ms. Turner’s 

claim. The Board denied entitlement under § 1805 because it was undisputed that Omar Turner did not have

spina bifida. The Board denied entitlement under § 1815 

because Ms. Turner was not a Vietnam veteran. Although Omar Turner’s father was a Vietnam veteran, the 

Board concluded that “there is no legal basis upon which 

to award benefits [for disabilities other than spina bifida]

due to [the father’s] exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam.” J.A. 17. 

Ms. Turner appealed to the Veterans Court, which

held that she had abandoned her claim for benefits for 

spina bifida under § 1805 by failing to pursue it on appeal. See Helen J. Turner v. Eric K. Shinseki, Sec’y of 

Veterans Affairs, No. 11-3745, 2013 WL 344532, at *3 n.2
4 TURNER v. SHINSEKI

(Vet. App. Jan. 30, 2013). With respect to her claim under

§ 1815, the Veterans Court held that the Board had 

correctly interpreted the pertinent statutory and regulatory provisions, and that there was no legal basis for 

entitlement. Id. at *3.

Ms. Turner timely appealed to this court. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). 

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Ms. Turner argues that, contrary to the 

Veterans Court’s holding, the statute authorizes the 

payment of benefits to her son. We review statutory 

interpretations by the Veterans Court de novo. Cayat v. 

Nicholson, 429 F.3d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Ms. Turner first contends that the Veterans Court 

erred in interpreting the Veterans Benefits and Health 

Care Improvement Act of 2000, which created § 1815. See

Pub. L. No. 106-419, 114 Stat. 1857–1859 (2000), codified 

as amended at 38 U.S.C. § 1811–1816. Ms. Turner argues

that the statute authorizes benefits for the children of 

female and male Vietnam veterans. However, her argument is foreclosed by the plain language of the statute, in 

which the relevant subchapter is titled, “Children of 

Women Vietnam Veterans Born With Certain Birth Defects.” See id., 114 Stat. 1857 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the statute defines an “eligible child” as an 

“individual who . . . is the child . . . of a woman Vietnam 

veteran [and] was born with one or more covered birth 

defects,” 38 U.S.C. § 1811 (emphasis added). “Covered 

birth defects” are defined as certain “birth defects of 

children of women Vietnam veterans,” 38 U.S.C. § 1812 

(emphasis added). Thus, it is clear that Congress intended to authorize benefits for the children of female, not 

male, Vietnam veterans. We conclude that the Veterans 

Court correctly construed the statute to authorize benefits 

only for the children of female Vietnam veterans. 
TURNER v. SHINSEKI 5

Next, Ms. Turner argues that the VA was bound to 

award benefits to children of male Vietnam veterans 

because the VA had published benefits guidelines stating

that the children of male Vietnam veterans were eligible 

for birth defect related benefits. However, even if the 

publication were somehow pertinent, it would not support 

her argument. The 2007 VA publication Ms. Turner

mentions appears to be VA Pamphlet 80-07-01, Federal 

Benefits for Veterans and Dependents (2007), which correctly states that children of male or female Vietnam 

veterans may receive benefits for spina bifida, while 

children of female Vietnam veterans can receive benefits 

for other covered birth defects. See id. at 89–91. The 

2010 version of the publication is not materially different. 

See VA Pamphlet 80-10-01, Federal Benefits for Veterans: 

Dependents & Survivors 92, 101 (2010).

Finally, Ms. Turner argues that there is a “basis in 

VA Law for payment involving disabilities other than [the 

basis provided by] Public Law 106-419.” Appellant’s Br. 

2. However, Ms. Turner does not identify any other 

statute authorizing the award of benefits to the child of a 

male Vietnam veteran on the basis of birth defects other 

than spina bifida. As discussed above, the provision 

authorizing the VA to pay benefits to children with spina 

bifida is inapplicable here because the Board found that 

Omar Turner does not have spina bifida, and Ms. Turner

has not challenged that finding. Ms. Turner has not 

identified any other statutory provision that might authorize the VA to pay benefits for her son. 

We conclude that the Veterans Court correctly held 

that the statute does not authorize the VA to award

benefits to the children of male Vietnam veterans on the 

basis of birth defects other than spina bifida. We have 

considered Ms. Turner’s other arguments, and find them 

without merit. 

AFFIRMED
6 TURNER v. SHINSEKI

COSTS

No costs.