UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 02-352

J OHN D. D ES B R OW , S R ., 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

.

Be fore KRAMER, Chief Judge , and STEI NB ERG and GREENE, Judges

. O R D E R

T h e a p p e l l a n t , t h r o u g h c o u n s e l , a

p p e a l s a F e b r u ar y 1 9 , 2 0 0 2 , B o ar d

o f V e t e r an s ' App e a ls (B oard or BV A) de cision in which the Board denied an eff ective date prior to De cembe r 16, 1997, for VA 's aw ard to the appellant of non- service -conne cted pe nsion with special monthly pension based on the need f

or aid a nd attendanc e. Rec ord (R.) at 3, 9. The appe llant and the Secr etar y eac h filed a br ief, a

nd the appe llant filed a re ply brief. I n response to a J uly

2003 Court order, the Secre tary , on Aug ust 25, 2003, filed a memora ndum of law. On O ctober 10, 2003 , the appe llant filed an unoppose d motion for leave to file out of time his response to the Secre tary ' s memorandum of law. O n t h at same date, the Court re ceive d the appe llant's r esponse. The Court will gra nt the ap p el l an t 's Oc t o b er

2 0 0 3 m o t i o nan d

wi l l ac ce p tfo r f

i l i n g h i s re s p o n s e t o t h e S ec re t ary 's memorandum of la

w. For the re asons that fo l low, the Court will affirm the F ebrua ry 2002 Boa

rd decision.

I. Bac kgr ound The a ppellant s erve d on cer

tified ac tive duty

from January

1942 to Febr

uary 1944. R. at 12;
see 38 C.F .R. § 3 .7 (x) (2 5) (2 00 3) (r e c og nizi ngc e rt if ic a tio n a s a c tiv e duty

se rv ic e of

, in te r a lia , U .S. civilian flig ht c rew and aviation g round support employ ees of Pan Americ an World Airway s (Pan Am ) who se rv e d o ve rs e a s a s re su lt of Pan A m c on tr a c t w ithAi r T ra ns po rt Com mand

and Na va l A ir Transpor t Service dur ing pe riod from De cembe r 14, 1941, to Aug ust 14, 1945). As re flec ted in the
rec ord on appe al (ROA) , the appe llant initi ally was hospitalized on Aug ust 28, 1996 (R. at 15, 23);
on September 18, 1996, he was admitted to a private skilled care fac ility , suffe ring from, inter a lia, org anic br ain sy

ndrome (O BS) ( R. at 15, 21). The ROA also ref lects that, base d on a September 4, 19 97 , ex ami nat io n, a pri vat e ph y si cia n s tat ed t hat th e app ell ant was affl ict ed wit h, in ter ali a, O BS and opined t h at the appe llant's c ondition was chronic a nd prog ressive a

nd would not improve. S u p p l e m e n t a l ( S u

p p l

. ) R

. a t2 0; see R. at 21 . O n D e c e mbe r 1 6, 19 97 , th e a pp e lla nt, thr ou g h h is repr esentative, submitt ed an a pplication for VAcompensation or pension for OB S. R. at 15-24.

I n a De cembe r 18, 1998, dec ision, a VA re g ional offi ce (R O) awa rded the appellant
no n- se rv ic e -c onne c te d p e ns ion fo r h is O B S and

sp e c ia l mo nth ly

pe ns ion ba se d o n th e ne e d f

or a id2

an d a t t e n d an c e , e f

f e c t i v e D e c e mb e r 1 6 , 1 9 9 7

. R . a t 29 -3 1; see 38 U. S.C. § 5 11 0( a ); 38 C.F .R. § 3

. 4 0 0 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ( e f

f e c t i v e d at e o f aw ar d g e n e r a l l y w i l l b e l a t e r o f d a t e o f r e c e i p t o f c la im o r d a te entitlement arose ). The a

ppellant appe aled to the Boar d the ef fec tive date a ssigne d; specifica lly , he reque sted an e ffe ctive date of August 28, 1 9 96, the date of onset of his OB S. R. at 35 (Notice of Disag ree ment), 41-53 (S t atement of the Case) , 55-56 (Substantive Appe al in which appe llant
c on tende d th a t e qu ita

ble tol lin g sh ou ld b e a

pp lie d to e ff

e c tiv e -d a te pr ov isi on s) ; see R. at 60-68 (transc ript of September

15, 1999, BV A hea

ring ), 70-80 ( October

1999 written submissi on by
a pp e lla nt) ; se e als o R. at 83- 90 (September 2000 Boa rd decision in which BV A denie d ear lier
e ff e c tiv e date (E ED )) , Sup pl. R. a t 40 -4 5 (S e c re tary ' s Ap ri l 20 01 un op po se d mo tio n f or re mand in light of e nactment of V e te ra n s C la im s A s s is ta n c e A c t o f 2 0 0 0 , P u b

. L . N o . 1 0 6 -4 7 5 , 1 1 4 S ta t. 2096 (V C A A ) ) , Suppl

. R

. at 47 (A pr i l 2001 C our t

or der gr ant i ng S ecr et ar

y ' s unopposed m ot i on fo r r e m a n d ) , R . a t 9 2 -1 0 8 ( O c to b e r 2 0 0 1 w ri tte n s u b m is s io n b y a p p e ll a n t)

.
I n t he dec ision on appeal, the B oard f irst concluded that VA had c omplied with the du ty -t o- no tif

y and du ty -t o- a ssi st p ro vis ion s a s ame nd e d a nd a dd e d, re sp e c tiv e ly , b y the VC AA . R.
a t 3- 4; see 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103(a) , 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b), (c) (2003). The B oard the n noted that "[t]he doctrine of equitable t olling is a common law doctrine and not within the purview of the Bo ar d 's s t at u t o ry

au t h o ri t y t o d ec i d e c as es b as edo n

. . . 'ap p l i cab l e p ro v i s i o n s o f l aw an d re gu l at i o n '" (R. at 5-6 (quoting38 U.S.C. § 7104(a))) and that, ther efor e, the B VA " c[ould] on l y consider the statutory scheme for a llowing a

n [EED] for t h e b en ef

i ts gr anted" (R. at 7). The Boa rd conc luded that, "[b]ecause the [appellant' s Dec ember 16, 1997,] application [ for be nefits] was filed more tha n one y ear afte r the [Aug ust 28, 1996,] date of disability onset, retr oactive be nefits ca nnot be awa

rded [because] th e appropriate ef fec tive date unde r the re g ulations is Decembe r 16, 1997, the date of
re c e ipt of a pp lic a tio n. " R. at 7- 8; see 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a), (b) (3)( A), (B ); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.400, 3.400(b)( 1)(ii)(B ) (2003)

. On a pp e a l, t he a pp e lla nt c on te nd s that the Court sh ou ld a pp ly e qu ita

ble -t oll ing pr inc ipl e s to 38 U. S.C. § 5 11 0( b) (3 )( A) and (B ) a nd 38 C.F .R. § 3.4 00 (b )( 1) (i i) (B ) to all ow an EED of Au g us t 28, 1996. Appellant' s Br ief (B r.) at 1, 6-13; Reply Br . at 4 -1 0

. I n t h e alter native, the a

ppellant contends that he is entitled to an EED of Septembe r 4, 1997, the date t h at t h e p ri v ate phy sician examined him and conclude d that he had been diag nosed with O BS. Appe llant's B r. at 13-14. T he appellant a lso contends that VA f ailed to comply

with the notice provisions o f the VCAA. Appellant' s Br . at 1, 13. The Sec reta ry counter s that, beca

use 38 U.S .C. § 5110(b)( 3)(A) and (B) a re not subject to equitable tol ling and beca use t he appellant failed to file a claim for benef its withi n one y ear afte r t he date on which he be came "' perma nently and totally

disabled,' " i.e ., within one y ear afte r Au g us t 28, 199 6 (Se c re tary ' s Br . at 4 (qu oti ng 38 U. S.C. § 511 0( b) (3 )( A) , ( B )) ), the Court sh ou ld
a ff ir m the B oa rd ' s dec isi on that the pr op e r ef fe c tiv e date is De c e mbe r 16, 19 97 , the un dis pute d d a te that the appe llant initi ally applied for

VA pension. Sec reta

ry ' s Br

. at 4 -1 0

. T he Secr etar y further
c on te nd s th a t th e re " is n o e vid e nc e " to s up po rt any c on ten ti on that Se pte mbe r 4 , 1 99 7, is the date that the appe llant beca

me per manently and tot ally

disabled bec ause the onset of his condition was in Aug ust 1996. Secreta

ry ' s Br . at 10.3 II. Ana lys is Section 5110(a) of title 38, U.S. Code, provides that, unless otherwise specific ally stated, the eff ective date for a

n awa rd of, inter

alia, disability

pension " shall be fixed i n ac corda nce w ith the fa c ts f ound , b ut s ha ll n ot b e e arl ie r t ha n th e date of

re c e ipt of the a pp lic a tio n th e re fo r. " 38 U. S.C. § 5 11 0( a ); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Section 5110(b)( 3) then provide s that the eff ective date of a

n awa rd of di sa bil ity pe ns ion to a ve te ra n " wh o is pe rm ane ntl y

and tot a lly dis a ble d a nd wh o is p r e v e n t e d b y a d i s a b i l i t y f r o m a p p l yi n g f o r d i s a b i l i t y p e n s i o nf

o ra p e r i o d o f a tl e a s t3 0 d ays be g inn ingon

the date on

wh ic h th e ve te ra

n b e c a me pe rm ane ntl y

and tot a lly dis a ble d" (3 8 U .S. C. § 5 11 0( b) (3 )( B )) " sh a ll b e the date of a pp li catio n o r t

he date on

wh ic h th e ve te ra

n b e c a me perma nently and totally

disabled, if the ve tera

n applies for a re troac tive awa rd within one y ear

from such date , whicheve r is to the advanta g e of the veter an" (38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(3) (A))

. See38 C.F .R. § 3.400(b)( 1)(ii)(B ).

Wit h respe ct to the appe llant's a rgu m en t that the Court should apply , for a ny rea son, the principles of e quitable t olling to 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)( 3), t hat arg ument is unavailing . I n this reg ard, t h e Un i t ed S t at es C o u rt o f A p p ea l s fo r t h e F ed er al C i rc u i th as s t at edu n eq u i v o ca l l y t h at , al t h o u gh "[e]quitable tolling may

be applied to toll a statute of limit ations[,] . . . . [section] 5110 does not contain a statute of limitations, but mere ly indicates whe n benef its may beg in and provides f

or an e ar l i e r d a t e u n d e r

c e rt a i nl i m i t e d

c i r c u m s t an c e s. " A n d

r e ws v . Principi , 351 F.3d 1134, 1137- 38 (F ed. Cir. 2003), a

ff 'g 16 Ve t.A pp . 3 09 (2 00 2) ; se e Ro dr igu e z v . W est , 189 F.3d 1351, 1 3 5 5 (F ed

. C ir. 1999) (statingthat nothing in 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102 or 77 2 2 (d ) i ndicates or sug g ests justification for "ig noring the unequivoca l command in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a) that the eff ective date of benef

its cannot be ea rlier than the filing of

an application therefor ") . Thus, reg ardle ss of the theory upon which the appellant pr emises his reque st f or equitable tolling in this case , his argument must fail beca use he "[is] not seek[ing] to toll any statutory limit ations period[, but] rathe r . . . [is] ask[ing] this [ C] ourt to waive the e x press statutory require ments for a

n [EED] for [pensi o n ] , whi ch we cannot do." An dr e ws , 351 F.3d at 1138. As to the appe llant's a

rgument for a

n EED of Septe mber 4, 1997, on the g round that he w as examined on that date by a private phy s i ci an , t h e appellant ha s provided no support for the assig nment of any

such ef fec tive date. SeeAppellant' s Br . at 13-14; U.S. V ET . A PP . R. 28(a)(5) (appe llant's bri ef m u s t co n t ai n "a n argument . . . and the r easons f or [them] , with citations to the authorities . . . re lied on")

. Finally , to the extent that the appellant ar g ues that VA failed to comply with its duty to notify under the VC AA , t he Court notes that the a ppellant consistently

has ave rre d both that August 28, 19 96 , is the dat e on wh ic h h e be c a me " pe rm ane ntl y and tot a lly dis a ble d" (3 8 U .S. C. § 5110(b)( 3)(A) ) (

see , e.g., Appellant' s Br . at 1, 2, 4, 13; Reply Br . at 1, 2, 7; R. at 15, 21, 23, 24, 26 , 3 5, 55 , 6 3, 71 , 9 6; S up pl. R. a t 24 ) and that De c e mbe r 1 6, 19 97 , is the date on wh ic h h e ini tia lly fi le d his cl a im f

or be ne fi ts (see , e.g. , Ap pe lla nt' s B r. a t 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 14 ; Re ply B r. a t 1, 3, 5, 7, 8; R

. at 64, 71, 78). B eca

use the fa cts ave rr ed b y the appe llant never could satisfy

the re quirements of 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(3), the Court concludes that any Boa rd er ror r eg ardingthe app l i ca tion of the VCAA wa s nonprejudicial. See38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(2) ( as ame nded by the Vete rans B enef

its Act of 2002, Pub. L . No. 107-330, § 401, 116 Stat. 2820, 2832); Valiao v. Principi , 17 Vet.App. 229, 2324

(2 00 3) (h old ingthat f

a ilure to c omp ly

wi th V CA A c on sti tu

t e s no np re jud ic ia l e rr or

" [w]he re the fa c ts
aver red by a claimant cannot conce ivably result in any

dispositi on of the a

ppeal other

than aff irmance of the B oard de cision")

. The Court, there fore , cannot c onclude that the a ppellant h as d em o n strated that the B oard
c omm itt e d a

ny e rr or in t he de c isi on

on a pp e a l th a t w arr ants re ve rs a l or re mand . T he Court

thu s w ill aff irm the Fe bruar

y 2002 Boa

rd dec ision.
Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is

OR DE R E D t h at t h e ap p el l an t 's Oc t o b er 1 0 , 2 0 0 3 , m o t i o ni s gr a n t e d

. T h e ap p el l an t 's response to the Secre tary ' s memorandum of law will be acce pted for filing a s of Octobe r 10, 2003, the date that it was rec eived. It is further

ORDERED that the F ebrua ry 19, 2002, Boa

rd dec ision is AFFI RMED.

DA TE D: May

4, 20 04 PER CU RI AM

.