UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 00-970
L AR R Y D. R

UF F I N , 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 De cembe r 5, 2001 Dec ided Marc h 11, 2002 )

Jame s W . Stanley, Jr ., of

No rt h L itt le Roc k, Ar

ka ns a s, fo r t he a pp e lla nt.
An n G . G awa lt , with

wh om Tim S. Mc Cla in , Ge ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , Acting Assistant Gene ral Couns el; and Carolyn F. W ashington , Deputy

Assistant Gener al Counsel, wer e on the pleading s, all of Washington, D.C., for the appe llee.
Be fore KRAMER, Chief Judge , and HOL DAWAY and IVERS, Judges

. I VERS, Judge , filed the opinion of the Court. KRAMER, Chief Judge , filed a c oncurr ing opinion.
I VERS, Judge : The vete ran ha s appea led only one part of a Fe bruar

y 10, 2000, decision of the B oa rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls ( B VAor

B oa rd ), and on ly tha t pa rt of th e Board ' s d e c isi on

is

a dd re s s e d h e r e i n
. T h e v e t e r anf

r a m e d t h e i s s u e o na

p p e a l a s w h e t h e r

t h e B o ar d

i n c o r r e c tly deter mined that his 1969 claim for ser vice connec tion f

or a back disability

was no long er a

n open
c la im. Th e un iqu e fa c tua l and pr oc e dura l cir c ums ta nc e s of this c a se c a ll fo r an op ini on of the Court

. See Frankel v . Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 23, 25- 26 (1990). At oral a rg ument, the Court, hear ing no obje ction from counsel for the ve tera n, deeme d as filed the Sec reta

ry ' s motions for leave to f ile a supplement to the re cor d o n ap p ea l and a supplemental brief

, and the attendant documents. The motions for leave to file ha ve ther eby

been g rante d, and the suppleme ntal rec ord on appe al and the Sec reta ry ' s supplemental brief

are filed.2 I. F AC TS Upon hi s discharg e from active service in the U.S

. Army , the veter an filed a claim for V A be ne fi ts w ith re sp e c t to, a mon g oth e r c on dit ion s, sti ff ne ss i n h is b a c k. Re c or d ( R.) a t 12 , 1 5. A Jul y 30 , 1 96 9, VAre g ion a l of

fi c e (R O) de c isi on

re g ard inghis c la im f

ound that hi s b a c k s tif

fn e ss w a s in the re g ion of his lumbar spine, was de velopmental, and w as not a disability under the law. R. at 15- 16. The ve tera

n did not appeal the RO de cision. I n 1982, the veteran sought t o reope n his claim reg arding his lower back. R. at 18-19, 22. I n a de c isi on date d Se pte mbe r 2 4, 19 82 , th e RO fo un d that " [s]e rv ic e c on ne c tio n h a [d] pr e vio us ly been de nied for de velopmental anoma lies, lumbar spine." R. at 24. The RO notified the vete ran of the dec ision reg ardinghis lower- back claim in one sentence of an Oc tober 12, 1982, letter : "Ser vice

connec tion has previously been denied for developmenta l a nomalies, lumbar spine." R. at 28. The veter an did not appea l this R O dec ision. I n a letter to the RO, dated Apr il 17, 1998, the vetera n, throug h counsel, a sserted that he had

never been notifie d of the 1969 de nial of hi s lower back claim, and requested a formal de cision on that c la im. R. at 55 . T he RO re sp on de d, in a Ma y 18 , 1 99 8, le tte r, statin g a s f oll ow s: A thoroug h review of our r ecor ds does not indicate that pr oper notification was f

orwa rded to Mr. Ruffin at the time a decision wa s made on this claim in 1969. Howe ver, in [ a VA] letter dated Octobe r 8, 1982, Mr Ruffin wa s notified that his claim for a spinal disorder had prev iously

been de nied. B ased on this information, the notification forw arde d in 1982 finali z ed t h is issue and the appe al rig hts have e x pired.
R. at 57. The RO noted that the O ctober 8, 1982, VA letter

listed "de velopmental anoma lies" a mong
c on dit ion s f

or wh ic h s e rv ic e c on ne c tio n h a d n ot b e e n e sta bli sh e d. R. at 26

. Pr e su ma bly , th e RO

c on sid e re d th e ve te ra

n' s d e ve lop me nta l ano ma lie s i n hi s lum ba r s pin e a s o ne of

the se "de velopmental anoma lies." On May 27, 1998, t h e v et er an filed a Notice of

Disag ree ment conce rning the disposition communicated in the Ma y 18, 1998, R O l et t er
. R. at 59. I n the Fe bruar y 10, 2000, decision on appea l, the Boa

rd conc luded that the RO had denied service connec tion f or a back disability

in 1969, and that the Septembe r 1982 RO dec ision confirmed a nd continued the July

1969 denial. R. at 3.3

I n r e sp on se to t

he ve te ra n' s c on te nti on

that he wa s n ot notified of the 19 6 9 denial, the B oard conclude d: "B y

means of a

September 1982 r ating action, ser vi ce connection for a lumbar spine disability was de nied. The veter an was notified of this c ontinued denial of se rvice connec tion and furnished w ith a copy

of his proce dural a

nd appellate rig hts in October 1982." R. at 4.

II. AN AL YSI S I n 1969, the re g ulation addre ssing VA ' s duty to notify claimants of RO decisions re ad as fo llo ws : [T] he cla imant will be notified of a n y d ecision authorizing the

pay ment of be n ef

i t or disallowanc e of a

claim. Notice w ill include the re ason for

the dec ision, the claimant' s rig ht to init iate an a ppeal by filing a notice of disag ree ment and the time limit s within which such notice may

be filed. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 (1969). In addre ssing the ve tera n' s contention that he wa s not notified of the 1969 RO denial of his lower- back claim, the Board, at the very least, fa iled to comply

with the regulatory require ment that a re ason be pr ovided for the 1969 denial. See R. at 3-4. The attempt to have the Oc tober 8, 1 9 8 2 , d en i al letter c onstrued as a denial of the 1969 lower- back claim is likewise insufficie nt. See R. at 26. The October 12, 1982, RO letter, stating that "[s]ervice c onnection ha[d] previously bee n d e n ie d f o r d e v e lo p me ntal anomalies, lumbar spine ,"

c ann ot sta nd a s a de nia l of the 19 69 c la im in c omp lia nc e wi th t he g ov e rn ingre g ulatio n, 38 C.F .R. § 3.103. See R. at 28 . F or the se re a so ns , the Court ho lds that the B oa rd did no t pr ov ide a de qu a te

rea sons or bases to support its deci s i o n t h at the vete ran w as notified of the 1969 denial of se rvice

connec tion, in compliance with the g overningreg ulation. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d). During the ora l arg

ument for this appe al, it beca me abunda

ntly clea r that whe ther the ve tera

n was prope rly

notified of the den i al o f h is 1969 lower-ba ck cla im is an unresolved fa ctual matter

. This Court is pr eclude d from making finding s of fa ct in the first instance

. See Sanchez-Benitez v. Principi , 2 59 F .3 d 135 6, 13 63 (F e d. Cir . 2 00 1) ; He ns le yv . W est , 212 F.3d 1255, 1264 ( Fe d. Cir. 2000). F or that re ason, the Court will leave open the que stion that ini tiated this a ction, first raise d in the veter an' s April 1998 letter to the RO. Also during the ora l argument, counsel for the veteran averr ed that the primary purpose of4

the appeal i s to preser

ve the 1969 c laim date, on the c hance that the veter an mig ht rec eive a g rant of ser vice connec tion f

or his lowe r-ba ck condition thr oug h some later claim. This argument is, of

c ours e , p re ma tur e . T he Court , taki ng du e a c c ount o f t he ru le of

pr e jud ic ia l e rr or , 3 8 U .S. C. § 7 26 1( b) , ta

ke s n o a c tio n th a t is no t r e qu ir e d to dis po se pr op e rl y of the pr e se nt a

pp e a l.

III . C ON CL USI ON Ba sed on the re cord, a s supplemented, and the pleading s filed for this a ppeal, a nd consistent with this opinion, the Fe bruar y 10, 2000, BV A dec ision is VACATED as to the issue of whe ther the veter an ' s 1 9 6 9 c la im f

o r s e r v ic e c o n n e c ti o n f

o r a b a c k d is a

b il it y r e ma in s an o p e n c la im , an d that matter is REMANDED f

or fur ther a djudication.

KRAMER, Chief Judge , concur ring in the result: I concur in the vacatur of the F ebrua ry 10, 20 00 , B oa

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

rd or B VA ) d e c isi on

wi th r e sp e c t to the iss ue of the fi na lity of the J uly 1969 VA reg ional office (RO) denial of t he appellant' s claim for se rvice connec tion for

a ba c k c on dit ion

and in t he re mand

of that matte r. Iwr ite se pa rate ly to e xplic a te the iss ue s th a t I believe, at a minimum, t he Boa rd, on rema

nd, should address in providing an ade quate state ment of

rea sons or bases f

or any decision that i t rende rs. I nitially , I note that the appe llant acknowle dg ed at oral a rg ument that his primary

purpose in br ingingthis appeal wa s premised upon the supposition that at some time in the future he mig ht eventually be aw arde d s er v i ce co nnection for his back condition and that he wa s attempting to prese rve a 1969 eff ective date for any such award and that on appea l the appellant is not arguing that: the Court now should award him ser vice c onnection for his ba c k c on dit ion ; th e re wa s su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e of

re c or d f or the B oa rd to h a ve awar de d h im

se rv ic e c on ne c tio n f

or that c on dit ion ; or

he ha s e vid e nc e to s ub mit in s up po rt

of his or ig ina l c la im for service connec tion for that condition. These circumstanc es raise a question as to whe ther ther e exis ts any curr ent ca se or c ontroversy for this Court to consider. See Bond v. De rwinski , 2 Vet.App. 37 6, 37 7 (19 92 ) (p e r curi a m or de r) ; Mokal v . Derwinski , 1 Ve t.A pp . 1 2, 15 (1 99 0) . N e ve rt he le ss, beca use the a ppellant acknow ledg ed at oral argument that, in se eking to secure such a pr ospective g ra nt o f s e rv ic e c on ne c tio n, an a dd iti on a l pu rp os e in b ri ng in g t hi s app eal wa s to a vo id h a vin g to pr ov ide the qu antum of pr oo f ne c e ssa ry fo r a re op e ne d cla im, Ibe lie ve that th e re do e s in de e d e xist5

a cur rent c ase or

controve rsy
. See 38 U. S.C. § 51 08 (R e op e nin g dis a llo we d c la ims ); 38 C. F.R. § 3 .1 56 (a ) (2 00 1) (N e w and ma te ri a l e vid e nc e ); Ho dg e v . W est , 155 F.3d 1356, 1362- 64 (F ed. Cir. 1998) (de fining proper

regulatory

standard of

new a nd materia l evidence ). Thus , a s r e fl e c te d in

the re c or d o n a

pp e a l ( RO A) , th e pa

rt ie s' ple a din g s, and

the pa rt ie s' statements at ora l argument, the question bec omes whethe r the RO should now send to the a ppellant noti ce of th e July

19 69 de nia l of

his c la im f

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

or his ba c k c on dit ion . In th is reg ard, I note that, bec ause the appellant r equeste d, in April 1998, that the RO s en d to him noti ce of its 1969 denial of his claim (Record (R.) at 55), beca use t he RO dec ided, in May 1998, that the app e ll an t w a s n o t e n ti tl e d to s u c h n o ti c e ( R. a t 5 7 ) , an d b e c a u s e th e a p p e ll an t f il e d a N o tic e of Di sa greemen t (NO D) a s to that RO de te rm inatio n ( R. at 59 ), the iss ue of no tic e wa s r e a so na

bly raised to the B oard, a

nd thus the Boa

rd wa s require d to addre ss it. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104(a) (B oard decisions shall be ba sed on entire rec ord and upon c onsideration of a ll ev i d en ce an d m aterial of

r e c o r d an d a p p l i c a b l e p r o v i s i o n s o f

l aw an d r e gu l a t i o n ) , 7 1 0 5 ( F i l i n g o f N O D an d a p p e a l )

. In

a d dr e s s in g th is is s u e in th e F e b r u ar y 2 0 0 0 B o ar d d e c is io n o n a p p e a l, th e B o ar d , rely ing upon a n Oc t o b er 1 2 , 1 9 8 2 , l et t er

fr o m t h e R O t o t h e ap p el l an ti nwh i ch t h e R O s t at edt h at t h e ap p el l an t 's claim for se rvi ce co n n ec t i o n"h a[ d ] p re v i o u s l y b ee nd en i edfo r d ev el o p m en t al an o m al i es , " found that the a pp e lla nt w a s p ro vid e d n oti c e , in that O c tob e r 1 98 2 le tte r, of th e RO' s July

19 69 de nia l of

his

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

or his ba c k c on dit ion . R. a t 4, 28 . T he B oa rd thu s c on c lud e d th a t, beca use the a ppellant fa iled to file an NO D within one y ear of that Oc tober 1982 notification letter, the RO' s 1 98 2 d e nia l, a

nd in e sse nc e its July

19 69 de nia l, o f t

he a pp e lla nt' s c la im b e c a me fi na l. R. at 4-5. Ibelieve, how ever , that the Bo ard's F ebrua ry 2000 decision is inadequate in that the B VA failed to a ddress, inter a lia, the ade quacy , under the applicable regulations, of any notice that may have be en provided to the appellant in 1982. I n this re g ard, the Boa rd fa iled to addre ss whether the October 1982 letter upon whic h it relied complied with the a pplicable r eg ulations ex tant in 1969 and 1982, which appe ar to re quire that notice of the RO' s denial contain a rea son for such de nial. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 (1969); 38 C.F.R. § 3

. 1 0 3(e) (1982). I f the B oard c annot conc lude that the October 1982 letter doe s contain such a rea son, the BV A th en s hould addre ss the presumption of regularity

.6

Withre sp e c t to the pr e su mpt ion of re g ula ri ty , th e B oa

rd fi rs t shou ld a dd

re ss w he the r i t should be presume d t h at , as reflec ted in an August 1969 disabilit y awa rd workshe et that was discussed in a July 1998 Statement of t he C ase and that was submitted to the Court by the Secr etar

y
as a supplemental ROA, the appellant, in 1969, was notified of the J uly 1969 RO decision. R. at 71; Sup ple me nta l R. at 1- 2; se e Da v is v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 298, 300 ( 1994) (ther e exists presumption that appellant wa s notified of BV A decision and that presumption can be overc ome only by "' clea r
ev i d en ce t o t h e c o n t ra ry '" ( qu o t i n g A s h le yv
. D e rwi n ski , 2 Vet.App. 307, 308- 09 (1992)) . I f the Boa rd dete rmines that such a presumption exis ts, the BV A next should consider whether the May 1998 letter f

r o m th e RO to th e a

p p e ll an t, in w h ic h th e RO s tate d th a t " [a ] th o r o u g h r e v ie w of our

re c or ds do e s n ot i nd ic a te that pr op e r n oti fi c a tio n [of the RO ' s de nia l of his c la im] w a s f

or wa rd e d to [the a pp e lla nt in 196 9]," re bu ts that pr e su mpt ion . R. a t 57 ; se e Sc ho olm an v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 307, 310 (1999) ( Boa

rd is finder of

fac t for dete rm i ning w hether presumption of re g ularity has bee n rebutted) . I f such rebuttal has occurre d, the Board finally should consider whether the Secr etar y has

car ried his burde n to show that the appellant was notified of the 1969 RO denial of his claim. See W oods v. Gobe r , 1 4 V e t.A

pp . 2 14 , 2 20 (2 00 0) ; Da v is and Ashley , both su pra .