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

No. 00-1516 J

. B. S TEP HE NS , A PP EL L ANT ,

V . ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC R ETAR Y O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE .
Be fore HOLDAWAY, IVERS, and STEI NB ERG, J

ud ge s. O R D E R On appe al is the July

10, 2000, decision of the Boa rd of Ve tera

ns' Appea ls (BVA or B oard) that denied the ve tera

n' s claim for entitlement to an increase d rating for bilateral varicose ve ins, rated as 50% disablingprior to J anuar y 12, 1998, and as 4 0 % d i s ab l i n g for e ach lowe r extremity from J anuar y 12, 1998. Shortly afte r the re cord o n ap p eal wa s filed for this ca se, the Sec reta ry filed a motion for rema nd pursuant to the Ve tera

ns Claims Assi stance Act of 2000 ( VCAA), Pub. L . No. 106-475, 114 S t at
. 2 0 9 6 (N o v . 9 , 2 0 0 0 ). T h e ve t er an th en fi l ed two p l ea d i n gs : Ano p p o s i t i o nt o th e S ec re t ary's mot ion for a VC AA r e mand , w ithan e xplic it r e qu e st t hat th e Court

a dju dic ate theme ri ts o f h is appea l; and a motion to rever se sum m ar i l y th e BVA dec ision. On J une 27, 2001, the Sec reta ry opposed the mot ion to reve rse and rea sserted his position that rema nd is require d under the VCAA. On June 19, 2002, the Secre tary filed a motion (1) to w ithdraw his motion seekinga VCAA r emand, and (2 ) s e e kin gle ave to f

ile a su pp le me nta l r e sp on se to t

he ve te ra n' s mo tio n f

or summa ry re ve rs a l. Prior to the issuance of

this order , the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fe dera l Circuit (Fe dera l Cir c uit) iss ue d tw o de c isi on s re le va nt to wh e the r a VC AA re mand is r e qu ir e d f

or thepr e se nt a

pp e a l. See B ernklau v . Principi , 29 1 F .3 d 79 5 (F e d. Cir . 2 00 2) ; Dyme nt v. Principi , 287 F.3d 1377 ( Fe d. Cir. 2002). In eac h decision, the F eder al Circuit held that the sections of the VCAA c odified at 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, and 5103A, conc erningnotice and a ssistance to be provided to c laimants by VA, ar e not re troact i v el y applicable to proce eding s that werecomplete be fore VA and w ere on appea l to thi s Court or the F eder al Circuit when the V CAA was e nacte d. See Bernklau , 291 F.3d at 803-06. The B oard de cision on appea l in the prese nt c ase was issued on July 10, 2000, months before the Novembe r 2000 ena ctment of the VCAA. The Court c oncludes, there fore , that a rema nd for the Boa rd to consider

the matters on appea l in light of the VCAA sec tions codified at 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 51 03 , a nd 51 03 A i s not

require d. See Bernklau and Dyme nt , both su pra . The re maining se ctions2

of the VCAA a

re not implicated in this appeal. In p art i cu l ar , the appe al does not ra ise issues reg arding well groundedne ss or the benef it-of-the- doubt doctrine. See , e.g. , 38 U. S.C. § 5 10 7; see ge ne ra lly Dela Cruz v. Principi , 15 Vet.App. 143, 148- 49 (2001) ( Court found that VCAA did not c ha ng e be ne fi t of

thedo ub t do c trine ); Luyster v. Gobe r , 14 Vet.App. 186 ( 2000) (r ecognizi ngthat VCAA re quires re mand for r eadjudication if claim had bee n denied a s not well grounded)

. Withre sp e c t to the ve te ra n' s mot ion fo r re ve rs a l, the e vid e nc e of re c or d do e s n ot e sta bli sh that reve rsal is the appr opriate r emedy . This is not a case of uncontrove rted evidence in favor of the veter an, the sort of evidence that could result in a re versa l. Se eHi c k s v . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 417, 422 (1995). The veter an asser ts tha t the evidenc e of rec ord is r eplete w ith unrefuted doc umentation that he complaine d of pain, a nd that the B oard none th el ess fa iled to award compensation for the functional impairment that pa in imposed on him. In his pleading s, the veteran ra ises the argument that, with respec t to his pain, the schedule f or rating musculos k el et al sy stem disabiliti es, found at 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, should be used f or his claim conc erningvaric ose veins. The veter an argues that his functional loss due t o p ai n s h o uld be consider ed pursua nt to a regulatory

provision reg arding functional loss in the musculoskeletal sy stem, i.e., 38 C.F.R. § 4.40. The ve tera n, howeve r, see ks an incr ease d disability

ratingfor the se rvice -conne cted c ondit i o nof varicose ve ins, not a service

connec ted condition of the musculoskele tal sy stem. A claim conc erningthe musculoskeletal sy stem was not dec ided by

the B oard, a

nd is, the ref

ore, not be fore the Court for this appe al. See38 U. S.C. § 7252. Th e a

pp e a l of a de c isi on c on c e rn inga

c lai m for an in c re a se d r atin gis s ub je c t to re vie w i n this Court under the " clea rly err oneous" standard. S

e eS m a l lw o o d v . B ro wn , 1 0 Vet.App. 93, 97 (1 99 7) . T he reis a pla

us ibl e ba sis in t

he re c or d f

or theB oa rd ' s d e te rm inatio n o f t

he c or re c t di sa bil ity ratingfor the ve tera

n' s service -conne cted va ricose ve in condition. See G ilb er t v. Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 4 9 , 5 3 (1990). The condition was prope rly rate d under D iagnostic Code (DC) 7120, which is expressly

designated as the DC for va ricose ve ins. The DC is under a subheading"D iseases of the Art eri es and

Ve ins " in t

he sc he du le of

ratin g s f or thec ard iov a sc ula

r s y ste m. 3 8 C. F .R. § 4 .1 04 . T he ve te ra

n h a s n ot a

rgue d th at the ra

tin g un de r DC 71 20 wa s f a ult y ; hesim ply atte mpt s, through this appeal, to havethe Court deter mine in th e fi rs t i n s t ancethat his claim should be evaluated usingthe criteria for disabiliti es of the musculoskeletal sy stem. To do so would require that the Court make fac tual deter minations, a

n exercise that is beyond the Court' s jurisdiction. See He ns le yv . W est , 212 F.3d 1255, 1263- 64 (F ed. Cir. 2000). The Court af

fords great defe renc e to the B oard' s determination of the proper DC. Bu tts v . B ro wn , 5 Ve t.A

pp . 5 32 , 5 38 -3 9 ( 19 93 ). Whe re , a s h e re , th e DC us e d is sp e c if ic a lly la be le d w ith the name of

the veter an' s diagnosed, ser vice- connec ted con dition, i.e., va ricose ve ins, the Court finds that the B oard' s use of that DC wa s not arbitrar y or ca pricious, not an abuseof discre tion, and was in acc ordanc e with law. Id .; see38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3) (A).66 Fe d. Reg

. 45, 620, 45, 630- 32 ( Aug

. 29, 2001) ( "D u t y t o As s i s t " r eg u l at i on s , amen di n g 38 C

. F. R. §§ 3. 102, 1 3

. 1 5 6 , 3.15 9 , 3.32 6 ).

See Hol l i day v. Pr i nci pi , 14 V et
. A p p . 28 0 , 28 5 (hold ing , in te r a lia, t hat al l pro vi si o ns o f V C A A were 2
re tro a c tive ly a p p lica b le to c la im s p e n d ing a t t im e o f en a c tm e n t o f V C A A ), m ot

. f or r econs. deni ed , 1 4 V et
. A pp . 3 27 ( per c u ria m o rd e r) , m ot

. f

or f ul lCo urt r evi ew d eni ed , 15 V et
. App. 21 ( 2001) ( en ba n c or der ) ; V A G en . Coun

. Pr ec . 11- 00, p. 4 ( N ov . 27, 2000) ( "a l l of t h e . . . pr ov i s i on s [ of t h e V et er an s Cl ai ms As s i s t an ce Act of 2000, Pub. L. N o. 106- 475, 11 4 St at
. 209 6 (N ov. 9, 200 0) ( V C A A ) , ] ap pl y t o cl ai ms f i l ed on o r af

t er N ovemb er 9 , 2 00 0, as wel l as t o cl ai ms f i l ed b e fo re the n b u t no t f

ina lly d e c id e d a s o f t h a t d a te " ). 3 Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is ORDE RED that th e Se c re tary' s mo tio n to wi thd ra w h is m ot io n for a

VC AAre mand

is grante d. It is further ORDERED that the Secr etar y' s motion for leave to fi l e a s up p lemental re sponse to the veter an' s motion for summary reve rsal is denied. It is further ORDERED that the vete ran' s motion for summary reve rsal is denied. It is further ORDERED that the Jul y

10, 2000, BVA dec ision is AFFIRMED. DATED: July

10, 2002 PER C URIAM STEI NB ERG, Judge , c o n c ur

r in g in p art an d d is s e nti n g in p art: A lt h o u gh I a gr e e th at the appellant ha s not demonstrated that the B oard of Veter ans' Appea ls (BVA) de terminations denying rating s above 50% disabling (prior to January 12, 1998) for

his Depar tment of Vete rans Af

fairs ( VA) se rv ic e -c onne c te d b ilate ra l va ri c os e ve ins in e a c h lo we r e xtre mity and a bo ve 40 % di s a

b l i n g f or tho se VAse rv ic e -c onne c te d b ilate ra l va ri c os e ve ins (f

ro m Jan ua ry 12 , 199 8) sh ou ld be re ve rs e d a s c le arl y err oneous pursua

nt to 38 U.S.C . § 7261(a) (4), I cannot join in the pane l order be causeIdon' t believe that this case is yet ripe for a panel decision as t o whether a remand for rea djudication is called for in c onnection with the enac tment of the Veter ans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L . No. 106- 475, 114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000) (V CAA), and VA re gulations adopted inconnec tion with that statute. 1 It appea rs that th e VC AA no long er is re troac tively applicable to a B oard de cision issued

2 befor e the VCAA ' s enac tment date (Nove mber 9, 2000) a nd on appea l in the Court. See D yme nt v. Principi , 287 F.3d 1377, 1385 ( Fe d. Cir. 2002), mot. for en banc rev iew filed ( M ay 2 , 2 0 0 2 )

. In rea chingthat holding, the U .S. Court of Appea ls f or the Fe dera l Circuit (Fe dera l Circuit) rea soned: [T] he infe renc e is nearly inesca pable that se ction 3(a) of the VCAA, unlike section 4[ , which ex plicitly provides for retroa ctivity], was not int e nd e d to be g ive n r e tr oa c tiv e e ff e c t. Ce rt a inl y the re is n oth inginC ur i ous l y , t he Ber nkl au op i n i on qu ot e d a pa s s a g e f r om L a n dsg ra

f v. U S I F ilm P ro d u c ts, 511 U

. S. 244, 270 3 (1 9 9 4 ) ( " [ s ] in c e the e a rly d a ys o f t h is C o u rt, w e ha v e d e c line d to giv e re tro a c tive e ff e c t t o sta tute s b u rd e n ing p riv a te righ ts u n le ss C o ngres s had m ad e cl ear i t s i nt ent " ), t hat wo ul d ap p ear i nap p l i cab l e t o t he si t uat i o n present ed by t he V C A A , i n whi ch t he f

ed eral gove rnme nt i m p o sed ad d i t i o nal ob l i gat i o ns o n itself t owa r d pr i v at e p art i es a n d di d n ot b u rd e n the rig h ts o f p riv a te p a rtie s. Be rnklau v. P ri n ci pi , 29 1 F.3d 79 5 , 80 4 (Fed

. C i r. 20 0 2 ) ( q uo t i ng Landgr af , 5 1 1 U

. S. at 2 7 0 ). T he Sup rem e C o urt ' s o p i ni o n i n Landgr af s t r es s es re pea t edl y t h e c on ce r n t h atpr i v at e r i g h t s n ot be re tro a c tive ly b u rd e n e d

. See Landgr af , 5 1 1 U .S . at 2 6 5 (" [e ]le m e n ta ry c o n sid e ra tio n s o f f a irn e ss d ic ta te tha t in d iv id u a ls s h ou l d h av e an oppor t u n i t y t o k n ow wh att h e l aw i s an d t o con f or m t h ei r con du ctac cor di n g l y " (e mph as i s adde d) ) , 282 ( "[ t ] h e i n t r odu ct i on of

a r i g h t t o c ompen s at or y da mag es i s a l s o t h e t y pe of l eg al ch an g e t h atwou l d ha v e an i mpac t on p ri va te p a rti es'

p la n n ing " (e m p h a sis a d d e d )) ; s ee al s o i d. a t 266, 271, 272, 284.
S ee su p ra n ot e 1. 4
Kar nas v. D er w i nsk i , 1 V et
. A pp . 308 , 313 ( 19 91 ) ( hol di ng t hat"wher e t he l aw or r egu l at i on ch ang es af t er 5
a c l ai m has been f

i l ed or r eopened but bef ore t he adm i ni s t r at i ve or j udi ci al appe al pro cess has b een co ncl ud ed , t he vers i o n m o [r e] f

avo rable t o [t he] app el l ant s ho ul d

. . . ap p l y unl ess C o ngres s p rovided other wi se or perm i t t ed t he [Secret ary ] t o do other wi se and t he Se cret ary did so" (emp hasi s ad d ed ))

.

See 3 8 U

. S.C

. §§ 71 0 4 (b), 71 0 5 (c), 72 6 6 ; 6 6 F ed

. R eg. a t 4 5 , 6 2 0 (p rovidi ng, e xcep t a s t o t hree pro vi si o ns 6
r el at i n g t o r eope n i n g of cl ai ms , t h at "t h e pr ov i s i on s of t h i s f i n al r u l e appl y t o a n y c l ai m f or be n ef i t s r ec ei v ed by V A on o r a f t e r No v e m b e r 9 , 2 0 0 0 , a s w e l l a s t o a n y c l a i m f i l e d b e f o r e t h a t d a t e b u t n o t y e t d e c i d e d b y VA a s o f t h a t d a t e " ) ; VA G e n . C o u n . P re c . 1 1 -0 0 , su p ra n o te 3 (h o ld ing V C A A g e n e ra lly a p p lica b le to " c la im s fil e d b e fo re [N o v e m b e r 9 , 2 0 0 0 ,] b ut not f i nal l y de ci d ed as o f

t hat da t e" ).
In t hi s regard, t he C o urt rece nt l y s t at ed , i n Te t en II : "[ A] t t h e t i me of [ M r . T et en ' s ] de at h , t h e B V A dec i s i on 7 h ad n ot be come f

i n al , bec au s e t h e t i me f

or hi m t o f

i l e a t i mel y appe al t o t h i s C ou r t un der 38 U

. S. C. § 7266( a) a n d R osl er 4 the statutory

languag e o r context that would overcome the pr e su mpt ion of no n- re tr oa c tiv ity se t fo rt h by theSup re me Court

[in Lan dg ra f v . U SI Fi lm Prod

s. , 511 U.S. 244, 272-73 (1994)]. Ib id ; cf

. ibi d . (stating : "We ther efor e dec line to adjudicate [the] claim in light of the sta n d ar d set forth in sec tion 3(a) . . . , which was not enac ted while [the] claim was under c onsideration by

. . . [VA] ") . In Bernklau v . Principi , theF e de ra l Circ uit c on c lud e d th at Dyme nt "was p lai nl y corr ect ", be c a us e theSup re me Court

ha s " he ld repe ate dly that fe de ra l le g isl atio n is to b e c on str ue d to avo id retroa ctivity unless we c an disce rn cle ar c ongressional intent for that result" , Bernklau , 291 F.3d. 7 9 5 , 8 0 4 (F ed

. C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) ( ci t i n g Landgraf , 511 U.S. at 270). 3 In my v i ew , any

o p i n i o nap p l yi n g an d

i nt er p re t i n g Dyme nt and Bernklau , as th e m aj o ri ty's per curiam order a

ppear s to do, sh ou ld be pr e c e de d by fu ll b ri e fi ngon thee ff e c t of the se tw o c a se s, including briefingas to whethe r the VA"D uty to A ssist" regulations, issued on August 29, 2001, 4 have a pplication under Karnas v. De rwinski to an appe al in this Court of a pre- VCAA-e nactment 5 BVA dec ision wh ereneither VA nor the B VA had issued a decision that bec ame f inal and no na pp e a la blebe fo retha

t da te
. (Ino te that th is i ssu e a lso ra ise s th e qu e sti on of wh e the r a

c la im 6 is "fina lly decide d" by

th e BV A wh en it has been a ppeale d to our Court. ) F urthermor e, brie fing 7[ v. D er w i nsk i , 1 V et
. A p p . 24 1 , 24 9 (19 9 1 ), ] had no t e xp i red. Fro m that d at e o f d eat h in Jul y 1 9 9 1 to t he C o urt ' s January 1995 or der v ac at i n g t h atB V A dec i s i on , t h e den i al of t h e appe l l an t ' s c l ai m r ema i n ed i n a s t at e of n on f i n al i t y . " Tet en v. Pr i nci pi , 1 6 V e t.A p p . 1 1 2 , 1 1 6 (2 0 0 2 ).
S ee su p ra n ot e 6. 8
T he b ri ef

i ng ord er i n M at l ockset f o rth t he i ssue s as f

o l l o w s: 9 ( 1) Doe s s e c t i on 3( a ) of t h e VCAA a pp l y t o t h e cl a i ms i n v ol v e d i n t h i s c a s e ? See Kar nas [, su p ra .] (2 ) D o the re v ise d V A a d ju d ic a tio n re g u la tio n s, s ee 66 Fe d. Reg

. 45, 630- 32 ( Aug

. 29, 2001) (to b e c o d ifi e d a t 3 8 C .F .R

. p t. 3 ) (" D u ty to A ssist" re g u la tio n s) , ap p ly t o the c la im s inv o lve d in this ca s e an d, i f

s o, u n der w h ata u t h or i t y w er e t h os e r eg u l at i on s pr omu l g at ed? (3) I f nei t her V C A A sect i o n 3(a) nor t he revi sed V A ad judicat i o n regul at i o ns ap p l y t o t he claim s i nv o l ve d i n thi s ca se, d i d V A ha ve a d uty t o assis t o r t o no t i f y i n re ga rd t o t ho se c l aim s?
M at l ock v . Pr i nci pi , _
_ V et
. A p p . _
_ _ , _
_ _ , N o . 0 1

- 6 8 8 , 2 0 0 2 W L 1 3 5 7 3 0 1 , a t *1-2 (per curi am ord er) (June 19 , 20 0 2 ).
See Mahlv . Pr i nci

pi , 1 5 V e t.A p p . 3 7 (2 0 0 1 ) (p e r c u ria m o rd e r) ; Bes tv . Pr i nci pi , 15 V et
. App. 18 ( 2001) 10 (per curi am ord er).

S u c h p re m a tur e ru ling s a re un fo rtu n a te ly no t a r a rity in this C o u rt. See Car pent erv . Pr i nci

pi , 15 V et
. App. 11 64 , 80 n. 2 , 3 (200 1) ( St ei nber g, J. , di s s ent i ng ) ( di s agr eei ng wi t h pr oceedi ng wi t hout f ul l bri ef i ng an d ci t i ng f

our ot her exam p l es of

C o urt rul i ngs wi t ho ut pe rt i nent bri ef i ng by t he p art i es)

. 5 should also be obtai n edon whether , if the VCAA we re c onstrued not to authorize retr oactive a pp lic atio n o f its pr ov isi on s (othe r tha n sec tio n 7), the Se c re tary , ne ve rt he le ss, ha s th e a

uth ority to c ontin ue to a pp ly theAu gus t 29 , 2 00 1, re gulatio ns un de r n on -V CAA a uth ority in e ff e c t on thedate of issuance– and, if so, whe ther the Sec reta ry would have the aut h o ri ty to do so retroa ctively

as those regulations provide

. See , e.g. , 38 U.S.C. §§ 501, 5103(a) , 7722(d) ( 1994 & Supp. V. 1999)

. 8 This Court very rec ently issued a briefing order as to similar questions arisingin a ca se whe re the B VAde c isi on

po std ate d th e e na c tme nt o f t he VC AAand pr e c e de d the pr omu lg atio n of t he Au gus t 29, 2001, regulations. Matlock v. Principi , __ Vet.App. ___, ___, No. 01- 688, 2002 WL1357301, at *1-2 (pe r curiam order) (June 19, 2002). 9 Al th o u ghth e C o urth as b ee nfa i th fu l t o i t s ca s el awh er e b y co n s i d er i n g th e ap p el l an t 's 10 contention for r ever sal, it has, once mor e, proc eede d prem at ure l y in decidingthis case without 11 appropriate briefing by the parties a s to the applicability of the VCAA or

the ef fec t of the issuance of the August 29, 2001, regulatio n s in view of the F eder al Circuit' s opinions in Bernklau and Dyme nt , both su

pr a , and of this Court's opinions in Hollidayand/or Karnas , both su pra .