NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JEROME L. GERMANY,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2021-1089

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 19-6131, Chief Judge Margaret C. 

Bartley, Judge William S. Greenberg, Senior Judge William P. Greene, Jr. 

______________________ 

Decided: October 19, 2021

______________________ 

JEROME L. GERMANY, Cedar Hill, TX, pro se.

 SARAH E. KRAMER, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

JEFFREY B. CLARK, TARA K. HOGAN, ROBERT EDWARD 

KIRSCHMAN, JR.; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, DEREK SCADDEN, Office 

Case: 21-1089 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 10/19/2021
2 GERMANY v. MCDONOUGH

of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Washington, DC. 

 ______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Jerome J. Germany appeals a decision of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), 

which affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) 

decision denying an earlier effective date for service-connected compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder 

(“PTSD”). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

 Mr. Germany served on active duty in the U.S. Navy 

from November 1988 to September 1992. In April 2008, 

Mr. Germany filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) for service-connected disability compensation for fatigue and breathing problems (the “2008 

Claim”). Despite repeated requests from the VA regional 

office (“RO”), Mr. Germany did not provide the VA with any 

information about the disabilities claimed, including when 

symptoms began, dates of any treatment, or identifying information for treatment providers. Mr. Germany later authorized the RO to obtain his medical records but again

failed to provide any information upon which the VA could 

locate the relevant medical records. In December 2009, the 

VA denied Mr. Germany’s claim. 

In October 2016, Mr. Germany was diagnosed with 

PTSD. A month later, Mr. Germany filed a new claim, this 

time seeking service connection for PTSD/chronic adjustment, depression, and anxiety (the “2016 Claim”). In connection with processing the 2016 Claim, the RO obtained 

Mr. Germany’s mental health records, which reflected that, 

after a May 2008 VA mental health screening, Mr. Germany tested positive for depression and negative for PTSD. 

Case: 21-1089 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 10/19/2021
GERMANY v. MCDONOUGH 3

In July 2017, the RO granted Mr. Germany’s request for 

service connection for PTSD and assigned a 50 percent disability rating effective November 2016. 

Mr. Germany challenged the November 2016 effective 

date before the Board, arguing that the VA was constructively made aware of his PTSD disability by his 2008 

Claim, and that awareness should serve as an informal 

claim, justifying an earlier effective date.1 The Board denied Mr. Germany’s claim of entitlement to an earlier effective date, and the Veterans Court affirmed. 

Mr. Germany now appeals to this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). 

DISCUSSION

Mr. Germany appears to argue that because support 

for his PTSD claim can be found in the 2008 medical records, i.e., his diagnosis of depression, his 2008 Claim 

should be considered an informal claim for PTSD. Under 

the applicable version of 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a),2 “any communication can qualify as an informal claim if it: (1) is in 

writing; (2) indicates an intent to apply for veterans’ benefits; and (3) identifies the particular benefits sought.” Shea 

v. Wilkie, 926 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). A “[v]eteran need not refer explicitly to the name of an illness, injury, or condition” on 

his claim form. Sellers v. Wilkie, 965 F.3d 1328, 1335 (Fed. 

1 Mr. Germany also appealed his initial rating of 50 

percent for his service-connected PTSD, which the Board 

remanded to the RO. That issue is not relevant to the present appeal.

2 In 2015, the VA implemented a rule that claims for 

disability benefits must be filed on a standard form and revised 38 C.F.R. § 3.155. See Standard Claims and Appeals 

Forms, 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660 (Sept. 25, 2014). Mr. Germany’s alleged informal claim predates this change. 

Case: 21-1089 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 10/19/2021
4 GERMANY v. MCDONOUGH

Cir. 2020). A high level of generality will suffice, so long as 

the “benefit sought . . . can also be found indirectly through 

examination of evidence to which those documents themselves point when sympathetically read.” Shea, 926 F.3d 

at 1368 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Had Mr. Germany’s mental health records been before 

the RO in the first instance in evaluating his 2008 Claim, 

that might have been sufficient to qualify as an informal 

claim for PTSD. See id. at 1370. In Shea, we held that the 

VA erred by not construing the veteran’s claim to cover psychiatric conditions referenced in her medical records but 

not explicitly listed on her claim form. Id. However, unlike 

Mr. Germany, the veteran in Shea included in her prior application for benefits information as to the relevant records, 

specifying “treatment by specific physicians at specific facilities during specific periods.” Id. at 1369. Here, despite 

the repeated efforts of the RO to obtain information from 

Mr. Germany that could help locate his medical records, he

failed to provide it. We therefore agree with the Veterans 

Court that “the Board was not required to anticipate an informal claim for PTSD that was not reasonably raised by 

the record or reasonably encompassed within the 2008 

claim for breathing problems and fatigue.” S.A. 6. 

Mr. Germany also argues that the VA violated its duty 

to assist under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(c)(1)(B). The question 

whether Mr. Germany provided enough information with 

his 2008 Claim “to identify and locate the existing records,” 

“the approximate time frame covered by the records,” and 

“the condition for which treatment was provided,” 

38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(3), such that it would trigger the Secretary’s duty to assist, is a factual question outside of this 

court’s jurisdiction, see Glover v. West, 185 F.3d 1328, 1333 

(Fed. Cir. 1999). 

CONCLUSION

We have considered the remainder of Mr. Germany’s 

claims, including his claims that the Veterans Court 

Case: 21-1089 Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 10/19/2021
GERMANY v. MCDONOUGH 5

decision implicates his due process rights and that it was 

improper for the Veterans Court to decide his case with a 

single-judge panel, and find they are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Veterans Court. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS 

No costs. 

Case: 21-1089 Document: 19 Page: 5 Filed: 10/19/2021