UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O . 97-25

D O U G LA S A. H AYW OOD , 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

.

Be fore KRAMER, Chief Judge, and F ARL EY and H OL DAWAY, J ud ge s.

O R D E R

Pr e se ntl y pe nd ingbe fo re the Cou

rt , f oll ow ingre mand by the Un ite d Stat e s Cour t of Ap pe a ls for the Fede ral Circuit (F eder al Circuit), Ha y woo d v . W

est , No. 99-7056, 1999 L EXI S 27403 (Fe d. Cir. Oct. 28, 1999), is M r. Hay wood' s application, through c ounsel, for attorney fee s and expenses under the Equal Acc ess to J ustice Ac t (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The sole matter now at issue is whether the Secre tary ' s position at the administrative leve l was substantially justified. For the

rea sons stated below, the Court concludes that the Sec reta ry ' s position was substantially justified and thus will deny

the EAJA application.

When this EAJ A application was initially pending befor e this Court, the Court denied the EAJA application on the basis that the Secr etar y ' s p o s i tion had been substantially justified. See Rh od an v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 55, 57- 58 (1998) ( consolidated with Ha y woo d v . W

est). I n its decision

rema nding the instant application, howeve r, the Fe dera l Circ uit dire cted this Court t o addre ss Mr. Hay wood' s argument (which was elucidated for the first time on appea l to the Fede ral Circuit) that the B oard of

Veter ans' Appea ls (Boa

rd or BVA) violated t he 38 U.S.C . § 5107(a) duty to assist and the 38 U. S.C. § 5 10 7( b) ben efi t-of -t he -d ou bt d oc tr ine by

fa ili ngsu a

sp on te to r e c on sid e r i ts October 31, 1996, decision in light of ne w re g ulations issued severa l day s after the B oard de cision, and th at the Secr etar

y there by lacke d substantial justi fication at the administrative level. He

e s s e n t i a l l y a r g u e d t h a t t h i s p u r p o rt e d d u t y t o r e c o n s i d e r

i s r e l a t e d t o t h e d u t y i mp o s e d

b y Karnas v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 308, 313 ( 1991) (" wher e t he law or regulation chang es af

ter a claim has been f iled or re opened but be fore the administrative or judicia l appea l proce ss has been c oncluded, the ver sion most favorable to a ppellant should a

nd we so hold w ill apply

unless Congr ess provided otherwise or

permitted the Secre tary of Veter ans Aff airs to do otherw ise and the Sec reta ry did so"),

and that bo th d

uti e s are ro ote d in

se c tio n 5 10 7. Th e Cour

t no te s th a t, d

ur ingthe pe nd e nc y

of thi s EAJA application, section 5107 was amended by the Veterans Claims Assistance A ct of 2000, Pub. L . N o. 10 6- 47 5, 11 4 St a t. 2 09 6 (No v. 9, 20 00 ); ho we ver, th at a me ndme nt i s n ot p e rt ine nt t o th is EAJA application beca

use substantial justification, the only matter at issue here , "is de cided unde r the law a s it wa s wh e n the c a se wa s be fo re the B oa rd or Court a t the merit s s tage" ( see Vaughn2

v. Gobe r , 1 4 Ve t

. Ap p

. 9 2
, 9 5 (2 0 0 0 ) ( p er cu ri am o rd er ) ( ci t i n g Bo we yv . W est , 218 F.3d 1373, 1376- 77 (F ed. Cir. 2000)).

On J anuar y 29, 2000, the Court issued an orde r direc ting the pa rties to file copies of t he brie fs that th e y ha d f ile d in the F e de ra l Cir c uit and to r e sp on d to the qu e sti on wh e the r t

he de c isi on

in Ro ute n v . W

est , 142 F.3d 1434 ( Fe d. Cir. 1998), cert. de nied , 1 19 S.Ct . 4 04 (1 99 8)
, lim ite d th e du ty to assist and benef

it-o f- t h e-doubt doctrine to evidentiar y matters. In his response, the a ppellant contends that the section 5107 provisions involved, when view ed in the conte x t of the pro- claimant VA sy st em, should not be limit ed to evidentiar y matters. He also appe ars to conte nd that the purp or te d d uty to re c on sid e r c ou ld be pr e dic a te d on 38 U. S.C. § 77 22 (d ), wh ic h " do e s n ot c on ta in any re fe re n ce to evidence or to fac ts." Appe llant's Supplementa l Brie f at 4. In response , the Se c re tary po int s o ut t

hat bo th s e c tio n 510 7( a ) an d (b) sp e c if ic a lly re fe r to " e vid e nc e " and a sse rt s th a t, ba se d o n th e pla in l a ng ua g e of the statut e , b oth

provi si on s are limit e d to e vid e nti a ry ma tte rs

. Secre tary ' s Supplemental Br ief at 4-5.

There is nothing in the languag e of former section 5107(a) or (b) that sug g ests that the B oard ha s a du ty su a sp on te to re c on sid e r de c isi on s in lig ht of su bs e qu e nt ch a ng e s in law

. Ra the r, the se sect i o n s , by

their plain languag e, dea l with evidentiary matters. Indeed, f

ormer se ction 5107(a) pr ov ide s th a t a

c la ima nt h a s th e burd e n to " su

bmi t evide nce sufficie nt to just ify a belief by a fa ir and impartial individual that the claim is w ell g rounded." 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a ) (e mphasis added) . The S ec re t ary t h en h as t h e du t y

t o "as s i s ts u ch a c l ai m an ti n d ev el o p i n g the fac ts pe rti ne nt to the c lai m ." Id . (empha sis added). Mor eover , fo rmer se ction 5107(b) pr ovides that when the re is " an approximate balanc e of positive and ne g ative evide nce re g a rd ing the me ri ts of a n issu e ma te ri a l to the deter mination of the matter, the be nefit of the doubt in re solving e ach suc h issue shall be g iven to the claimant." 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) ( emphasis adde d). Nor doe s 38 U.S.C. § 7722(d), which

re qu i r e s " [t ]h e S e c r e t a r

y [t o ] p r o v i d e , t o t h e m a xi m u m e xt e n t p o s s i b l e , a i d a n d a s s i s t a nc e

. . . to

m em b ers of the Armed F orce s, vetera ns, and elig ible depende nts . . . in th e p r e p a r a ti on and presentation of cl aim s u nd er l aws adm in is ter ed b y th e Dep art men t, " id . (empha sis added), ha ve any

re le va nc e to t he B VA ' s su a

sp on te re c on sid e ratio n o f d e c isi on s.

Th e Court

ho lds that no ne of the statut or y pr ov isi on s c ite d by the a pp e lla nt pr ov ide s a

ba sis for f i n d i n g that the Secr etar

y ' s position at the administ rative le vel was not substantially justified beca use they have no a

pplic ab i l i t y t o a s ituation where the B oard did not sua sponte r econside r a BV A dec ision where the re had been a chang e in law within 120 day s following its issuance . Her e, the B oard a

pplied the law in eff

ect at the time it issued its de cision. On appe al, the Secr etar y acte d expeditious ly

in ag ree ing to a

rema nd under Kar

na s, su pra , to permit the BV A to apply the re vised regulation, should that be more adva ntag eous to Mr. Hay

wood. Acc ording ly
, the C ourt holds that the Secr etar

y ' s position was substantially justified. See V

aughn, supra.

Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g a na ly sis , it

is

ORDERED that the Oc tober 16, 1997, EAJA application is DENI ED.3

DA TE D: De c e mbe r 1 2, 20 00 PER CU RI AM

.