UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR VE TER AN S CL AI M S

N O . 99-1471
H AR OL D E. S MI TH , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. H ER SH EL W. G OBER , A C TI NG 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
(De cided De cembe r 4, 2000 ) Mark R. Lippman , of L a Jol la, California, wa s o n th e br ie f f or the a pp e lla nt. Leigh A. Bradley , G e ne ra l Co un se l; R o n G a r v in , A ssi sta nt G e ne ra l Co un se l; Michae l A. Le on ar d , Deputy Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Al ic ia Hen ni ng Pratz , all of Washington, D.C., wer e on the br ief for

the appe llee.
Be fore KRAMER, Chief Judge , and I VERS and GREENE, Judges

. GREENE, Judge : Harold E. Smith, through c ounsel , appea ls a J uly 16, 1999, Boa

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

rd ) de c isi on that de nie d s e rv ic e c on ne c tio n f or ma lig na nt m e lano ma of his left foot. He asser

ts that the Boa

rd er red pr ocedur ally b y n o t ensuring that a B oard r emand

o r d e r t o t h e V A r e g i o n a l o f

f i c e ( R O ) w a s c o mp l i e d

w i t h b y t h e e xam i n i n g V A o n c olo g ist

. Mr. Smith raises sever al other issues that ne ed not be a ddresse d here . T h e C o u rt has jurisdiction

o v er t h e c as e u n d er

3 8 U. S

. C

. § § 7 2 5 2 (a ) a n d 7 2 6 6 (a ). Fo r t h e f o l l o wi n g re as o n s , t h e B o ar d 's decision will be vac ated a nd the matter r emande d.

I. F AC TS Mr. Smith s erve d on active duty in the U.S. A rmy from September 21, 1966, to J uly

5, 1968. Record ( R.) at 82. I n October 1967, an Army dermatologist opined t hat Mr. Smith had skin cance r
a nd sun- dama g e d s kin on his fa c e , a nd pla c e d h im o n a

me dic a l pr of

ile that r e qu ir e d h im t o avo id duties requiringany

exposure to the sun. R. at 55-56. I n May 1968, a medica l examination report2

in c on jun c tio n w ithse pa

ratio n d id n ot i nd ic a te a

bn or ma l sk in a

nd no te d h e ha d n e ve r ha d a ny sk in diseases but that h e h ad been a dvised to have a cy st removed. R. at 68-71, 78. I n October 1992, Mr. Smith had a lesion removed f rom his left foot an d a m al i gn an t m elanoma w as excised. R. at 102. I n J anuar

y 1993, he filed a

claim for e ntitlement to service c onnection for skin canc er. R. at 89 -9 2. Duri ng a

June 19 93 c omp e ns a tio n a nd pe ns ion (C & P) me dic a l e xami natio n, Mr . Sm ithtol d the e xami ne r that wh ile on a c tiv e du ty he ha d be e n a dv ise d to h a ve a bla c k mo le re mov e d f

ro m hi s left foot but that he did not have it removed until 1992. R. at 102. I n September 1993, the Houston, Texas, RO denied Mr. S mith's claim for se rvice connec tion for skin ca

ncer of the lef t foot after concluding that the condition was not manifeste d in service nor wi thi n o ne y e a r f

oll ow ingse rv ic e . R. a t 11 3. He fi led a No tic e of

Di sa g re e me nt (

NO D) , th e RO issued a Statement of the Case (SOC), and he filed a Substantive A ppeal with the Boa

rd. R. at 120- 29, 148-49. I n J une 1996, the B oard r emande d the ca se to the RO and dire cted inter alia: I n relation to the vetera

n' s claim for se rvice connec tion for m alig nant melanoma, the vete ran shou l d b e examined by specialists in dermatology and oncology . The e xami ne rs sh ou ld s ta te a n o pin ion on wh e the r t

he ma lig na

nt m e lano ma

is r e la te d to service , and in par

ticular, to the skin ca

ncer and sun dama g ed skin that wer e noted in the ser v i ce m edica l rec ords dated in Oc tober 1967. The vete ran's claims f older should be made av ailable to the examine rs in conjunction wit h the ex amination. R. at 343 (emphasis adde d). I n J anuar y 1998, the mat t er wa s ref err ed to a VAdermatologist who re ported, " After revie wing the fil e of the ve teran

. . . it is my op ini on that his ma lig na nt me lano ma is no t r e la te d to

se rv ic e ." R. at 46 1 ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . A lso in Janu a ry 19 98 , a VAon c olo g ist

re po rt e d: Mr . Sm ithha s 2 c a nc e rs : 1

. N o n - m e l a n o m a

s k i n c a n c e r s
. It s c a

u s e ( s ) p r e d a t e p a t i e n t [ ' ] s j o i n i n g s e r v i c e
. It manifested soon afte r he joined service

. I t is related to sun exposure but not in t he short duration as Mr. Smith had in service

. 2. Melanoma of

skin of sole of foot. I t is related to sun exposure bu t l es s so than non-melanoma

skin canc er that prec eded melanoma. Per sonal susceptibility play an important role in its occurr ence
. Again duration of exposure and intensity of exposure are deter

minant of its development. None of the above skin canc ers in this patient appe ar to be related to service

.3

R. at 462. Howeve r, the oncolog ist made no ref ere nce to r eviewing the claims folder, a nd neither d o ct or indicate d that he had e x amined Mr. Smith. Base d upon these opinions, the RO issued a Supplemental SOC that ag ain denied the claim. R. at 472-76. I n J uly 1 9 9 9 , th e B o a r d , r e ly

in g o n th e d e r

mato lo g is t a n d o n c ologist re ports, denied Mr . Sm ith ' s c la im f

or se rv ic e c on ne c tio n fo r m a lig na nt m e lano ma

of the le ft fo ot. R. at 1- 14 . T his appea l followed.

II. AP P LIC AB LE LA W A ND AN AL YSI S On appe al, Mr. Smith contends that the B oard e rre d by rende ring a dec ision in hi s case befor e the RO ha d co mpl ie d with the re mand ins tr uc tio ns . E sse nti a lly , h e a rgue s th a t th e re mand or de r t o p r o v i d e h i m a n e x a m i n a t i o n a n d t o r e v i e w h i s c l a i m s f

i l e h a s n o t b e e n f

u l l y c o mp l i e d

w i t h

. In response , the Secr etar

y argues that " [t ]here is a pre sumption of reg ularity under w hich it is presumed that g overnme nt officials have prope rly discharg ed their officia l duties." There fore , the Secr etar y contends, it should be pre sumed that the RO complied with the re mand orde r. I n Ste ga ll v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 268, 271 (1994), this Court held t hat the B oard' s remand of a matter to the RO confe rs on the cla imant, as a matter of law, the ri gh t t o co m p l i an ce with that

rema nd order . Fur

ther, such r ema nds impose upon the Secre tary a conc omitant duty

to ensure compliance with the terms of the r emand. Id. I t is c le a r f ro m th e se mand a te s th a t th e Se c re tary is responsible for ensuring the proper execution a nd administration of all laws administered by VA and that holdings of this Court are prec edent to be f ollowed. Stegall, supra. Turning to the events in this case , the Boa rd denied Mr. Smit h' s claim af ter re ly ing upon the repor ts by the dermatologist and oncolog ist. Howeve r, a B oard' s decision that re lies upon a medica l examination that failed to comply with remand ins t ru ct i o n s will result in a Ste ga ll violation and require a re mand. See Ste gall, s u p r a
. No wh e re in i ts d e c isi on do e s th e B oa

rd a dd re ss o r d isc us s compliance with its remand orde r. Althoug h the Boa rd relies upon the medical opinions in question, the Court notes that neither r evea led whethe r Mr. S m i t h was g iven an exam ination by either specia list as r equire d by the rema nd order . Fur

ther, only the der matologist re ports that he re viewed Mr. Smith's claims file.4

The Sec reta

ry ' s position t hat under

the doctrine of administrative re g ularity i t may be pr e su me d th a t the do c tor s c on du c te d the e xami natio n a nd the on c olo g ist

re vie we d th e c la ims fi le is mis pla c e d a nd mus t be re

je c te d. Th e Se c re tary

c a nn ot r e ly

on the pr e su mpt ion

of re g ula ri ty in t his

case to show compliance with the rema nd instructions beca

use t here has bee n no showing that VA has uniform proc edure s for the a dminist rative pr ocessing of remanded claims for whic h specia liz ed medical e x aminatio n s h av e been re quested a nd for whic h the claims file ha s been dire cted to be made available to the e x aminers. VA , of cour se, throug h i t s Gene ral Counsel, Compensation & Pe ns ion Di re c tor , a

nd the Ve te ra

ns He a lthAd

min istrat io n, c ou ld e nd e a vo r t o e sta bli shsim ple te mpl a te s o r p ro c e dure s th a t c ou ld e ns ur e c omp lia nc e wi th e ve n the mos t c omp le x of r e mand or de rs , including pr ocedur es establishing that when VA examiners rec eive spe cial dire ctions to ex amine a

ve te ra n a nd to c on du c t a me dic a l re vie w of a ve te ra n' s c la ims fi le , the y wo uld c le a rl y no te that th e se
re qu ir e me nts have be e n co mpl ie d with . Su c h p ro c e du re s c ou ld r e qu ir e that e xami ne rs c omp ly wi th the spec ific instructions of the re mand in order to form the basis for

their medica l opinions. I n other

wo rd s, the Se c re tary c ou ld de ve lop sp e c if ic me a sure s to me e t S

te ga ll 's require ment of complianc e wi th r e mand

or de rs
. H e r e , h o w e v e r , th e r e h a s b e e n n o s h o w in g th a t s u c h p r o c e d u r e s e xis t. T h e r e f

o re, w ithout such proc edure s, the Secre tary ' s position i g nores the Ste ga ll direc t i v e that a re mand orde r conf ers upon the claimant the r ight to complianc e with re mand orde rs and that the Secre tary has t he burde n of e ns ur ingc omp lia

nc e . T o a c c e pt s uc h a

n a rgume nt in the a

bs e nc e of e sta bli sh e d p ro c e dure s w ou ld

a llo w th e S e c re tary

to a br og a te his Ste

ga ll du ty . T he a dmi nis tr a tiv e re g ula ri ty pr e su mpt ion

is interpre ted to encompa ss reg ular a cts perf ormed in the ordinary course of g overnme nt business. See Y T v . B ro wn , 9 Ve t.A

pp . 195 (19 96 ); see also B LACK ' S L AW D I C TI ONAR Y 356 (7th ed. 1999) ( d e f i n i n g o r d i n a r

y c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s a s " [ t ] h e n o r

m a l r o u t i n e i n m a n a g i n g a t r a d e o r b u s i n e s s " )

. If the ac t is no t a re gu l ar one but is irregular, the Sec reta ry is not entitl ed to the pre sumption. See W arfield v. Gober , 1 0 V e t

. A p p
. 4 83 , 4 86 (1 99 7) ; see also United States v . Roses, Inc

. , 706 F.2d 1563, 1567 (F ed. Cir. 1983) (" The pre sumption [ of officia l r eg ularity may also] operate[] i n reve rse. I f [the act] appea

rs irre g ular, it is irregular, a nd the b u rd en s h i ft s to the proponent to show the contra ry ") . Acc ording ly , the C ourt will vacate t he Board' s decision and rema nd the m atter to e nsure that Mr. Smith i s aff

orded his rig ht to compliance with the r emand or der.5 III . C ON CL USI ON O n c o n s id e ra tio n o f th e fo re g o in g , th e Co u rt h o ld s th a t t h e B o a r d c o mm itte d

le g a l e rror that war rants re mand. Acc ording ly , the B oard' s J uly 16, 1999, decision i s VACATED and the matter REMANDED to the B oard f or fur ther proc eeding s consistent with this opi nion and in acc ordanc e wi th a ll a pp lic a ble statut e s and

re g ulatio ns , a

nd is su ance of a de c isi on su pp or te d b y a n a de qu a te statement of r easons or

bases. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 4( a ), (d )( 1) ; Fletche r v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 394, 397 (1991). The Boa rd s h al l proce ed expeditiously in acc ordanc e with sec tion 302 of the Veter ans' Be nefits I mprovement Act, Pub. L

. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 46 4 5 , 4 6 5 8 (1 994) (found at 3 8 U. S

. C

. § 5101 note) (r equiring Secre tary to provide for

"e x peditious treatment" for claims rema

nded by Boa rd or Court). See Dr os k

yv . B ro wn , 10 Ve t.A

pp . 2 51 , 2 57 (1 99 7) ; Allday

v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 517, 533-34 (1995). On r emand, the a ppellant may

submit additi onal evidenc e and ar g ument on the remanded claim, including the a dditional issues that the appellant has submitted to this C ourt. See Kut

sc he ro us k yv . W est , 12 Vet.App. 369 ( 1999) (pe r cur iam order ). The Court reiter ates that a re m an d b y this Court or by

the B oard c onfer s on an appe llant the rig ht to VA

com p li a n c e w it

h th e r e ma

n d o r d e r a n d im

p o s e s o n th e Se c r e ta

r y a c o n c o mi ta

n t d u ty to e nsure compliance with the terms of such a n order

. See Stegall, supra.