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

N O . 96-1170

H AR OL D E. B A LD W IN , 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

.

Be fore KRAMER, Chief Judge , and HOL DAWAY and I VERS, J ud ge s.
O R D E R

I n a September

7, 1999, opinion, the Court aff irmed t he Board of

Veter ans' Appea ls (Boa

rd) decision of Ma

y 16, 1996. Se e Ba ldw in v . W est , 13 Ve t.A

pp . 1 (1 99 9)

. Th e a

pp e lla nt fi le d a tim e ly motion for panel r econs i d er ation. The Sec reta ry submitt ed a r esponse to the a ppellant' s motion purs ua nt t o th e Court ' s o rd e r o f D e c e mbe r 3 , 1 99 9, tha t di re c te d th e Se c re tary

to s pe c if ic a lly a dd re ss the applicability

of Ha y re v . W est , 188 F.3d 1327 ( Fe d.Cir 1999)( HayreI ) t o the facts of this case , whether there is a claim still pending be fore VA, and if so, whether

the Court has, or eve r could have jurisdiction over such a

claim. On May

1, 2001, the Court order ed this matter stay ed pendingthe outcome of Hayrev. Principi , 15 Vet.App. 48 ( 2001)( HayreII ), and Livesay v . Principi , 15 Vet.App. 165 (2001)( en banc ). F or the following rea sons, the Court will gra nt the appellant' s motion for panel
rec onside r a ti o nan d

is s u e th is o r d e r

in c o r p o r a ti n g th e o p in io no f

Se p te mb e r

7 , 1 9 9 9 , r e a c h in g the
same re sult.

Th e a pp e lla nt a rgue s in his mot ion

tha t th e Court

fa ile d to c on sid e r r e le va

nt law, sp e c if

ic a lly the August 16, 1999, decision by the United States Court of Appea ls f or the F eder al Circuit (F eder al Circuit) in Ha

y re v . W est , su pra
. He contends that his c ase is f actua lly sy

nony mous with HayreI

, beca use ser vice medic al re cords ( SMRs ) he spe cifica lly identified we re not obtaine d by VA, nor w as he g i v en notice of suc h failure when the VA re g ional office (RO) initially denied his cla im. He argues, there fore , that his c laim r emains open and should be rema nded for proper development a

nd adjudication. He also alleg es other " g rave proce dural e rror s" which, under Ha y re , require rema

nd. Finally , he ar g ues that the Court " overlooke d" his a rgu m ents reg ardingthe pre sumptions of
a g g ra vat i o nan d

s o u n dn e s s a s w e l l a s a

p p l i c a t i o no f

a p art i c u l ar

1 9 5 6 r e g u l a t i o n , an d

t h a tt he se arguments dictate re mand. (The Court note s that althoug h it is unclear f rom his motion whether the appellant is re fer

ring to the presumption of ag g ravation or the presumption of soundness, c om pa re Motion at 1 with Motion at 5, the Court will assume that the appellant, on rec onsideration, is arguing that the Court failed to a ddress his ar g uments reg ardingboth presumptions.) I n response , the Se c re tary argue s th a t th e op ini on

of the Court sh ou ld be le ft un dis tur be d b e c a us e thi s c a se is fa c tua lly dis tin c tiv e fr om HayreI

, and eve n if a c laim wer e still pending, that the Court would not have jur isdiction to review the c laim, and bec ause othe r ar g uments now raise d by the appe llant were2

adequately

and appr opriately

addre ssed in the Court' s opinion.
The F eder al Circuit in HayreI state d th a t " a

sin g le re qu e st f

or pe rt ine nt S MRs sp e c if

ic a lly reque sted by

the claimant a

nd not obtained by

the RO does not fulfill the duty to assist." 188 F .3d at 1 3 3 1

. The HayreI Court emphasized the importance of VA' s duty to assist veterans se eking benef its. Id. I t went on to hold "whe re the re is a breac h of t he duty to assist in which the VA failed to obta in pertinent SMRs specifically reque sted by

the claimant[,] and failed to provide the c laimant wi th no ti ce ex pl ain in g the d efi cie ncy , t he cl aim do es n ot beco me fin al for pur po ses of appe al. " Id. at 1134. The F eder al Circuit rema nded the matter to the Court for a de termination of whe ther, in that
case , there had bee n a bre ach of the Secr etar

y ' s duty to assist. Id. at 1135. Upon re mand from the F eder al Circuit, the C ourt revie wed the case and dis missed it for lack of jurisdiction. Hayrev. Principi , su pra
. I n eff

ect, here a s in HayreII, the only way that the Court could exercise jur isdiction over this case is if the 1993 N otice of D isag ree ment (NOD ) ser ves a dua l purpose: (1) as an expli cit NOD to the underly ing May 16, 1996, Boa rd dec ision, and (2) a lso as an implicit NOD to the finality of an e arlier

adjudicative de cision from 1956. In Ha y re II , the C o urt expli citly reje cted a simil ar attempt to use a 1993 NOD to a Dec ember 1992 Boa rd dec ision deny ing CUE to boot s t ra p the appe llant's 1972 a djudication into a timely NOD. 15 Ve t.App. at 52. The problems with such an a

n al y s i s ar e t h e s am e in this case a s they wer e in HayreII. Id. The 1993 NOD wa s filed 37 y ear s after the one- y ear

statutory and re g ulatory

require ments for filing an NOD had expired. Fur

ther, as the Court note d in HayreII , " the 19 93 NO D w a s su

bmi tte d in

re sp on se to
a r a t i n g d e c i s i o nf

o r ane n t i r e l y s e p ar a t e c l a i m

. . . w h i c h c l a i m i nn o w ay, e x p l i c i t l y o r i mp l i c i t l y, pu rpo rt ed t o ch all enge the ' is su e of fin ali ty ' of t he [ 19 56 ] adj ud ica ti on ." Id. Th e Court is l e ft wi th no choice but to follow HayreII and dismiss thi s case for lac k of jurisdiction.

Th e Court no te s that whil e thi s app e a l w a s p e nd ingCon g re ss e na c te d th e Ve te ra ns Cla ims A s s is ta n c e A c t o f

2 0 0 0 , Pu b

. L

. N o

. 1 0 6

- 4 7 5 , 1 1 4 St a t. 2 0 9 6 ( N o v
. 9 , 2 0 0 0 ) [h e r e in a f te r V CA A ]. The VCAA a ffe cts sections of c hapter 51 of title 38 of the United S t at es C o d e, which provide g e ne ra l a dmi nis tr a tiv e pr oc e dure s f or VAto f oll owin p ro c e ssi ngc la ims fo r v e te ra ns benef its

. Rece ntly , the en ba

nc Court held that the VCAAwas not applica ble to CUE mot i o ns. Livesay , 15 Vet.App. 178-79. There fore , the appe llant's CUE motion nee d not be re manded f or fur ther adjudication.
Wit h respe ct t o the appellant's sug g estion that the Court overlooked his a rguments reg arding the presu mptio ns of

a g g ra vatio n a nd so un dn e ss, we no te that argume nts re g ard ingbo th o f t he se presumptions were considere d, addre ssed in the Court' s opinion, and determined to be unpersua sive. Se e Ba ldw in , 13 Vet.App. at 7-8. Wit h reg ard to the ap p ellant' s other ar g uments for pa nel
re c on sid e ratio n, the Court ha s c are fu lly

c on sid e re d th e m and

fi nd s th e m to be wi tho ut m e ri t. Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is ORDERED that the stay

is lifted. I t is further3

ORDERED that the appe llant's motion for pa nel re consideration is gra nted. I t is further

OR D E RE D th a t, a f

te r r e c o n s id e r a ti o n , th e Co u rt a d o p ts b y r e f e r e n c e it s o pinion of September 7, 1999, Ba ldw in v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 1 ( 1999), and a ffirms the B oard' s May 16, 1996, decision.

DA TE D: No ve mbe r 2 0, 20 01 PER CU RI AM

.

KRAMER, Chief Judge , concur ring in the re s u l t : I agre e that the a ppellant' s motion for
re consi deration should be gr anted; conc ur in the af firmanc e of the May

16, 1996, decision of the Bo ar d o f V et er an s ' Ap p ea l s ; an d agr ee , al b ei tfo r s o m ew h at d i ff er e n t r e a s o n s , t h at t h e ap p el l an t 's
rec onsideration ar g uments should be reje cted.
The appellant argues that, in the 1956 adjudication, a VA reg ional office (R O) co mmitt ed g rave proce dural error as define d in Ha y rev . W est , 1 88 F .3 d 1 32 7 ( F e d. Cir . 1 99 9) , b e c a us e the RO faile d to a d judicate a claim for se rvice connec tion for ey e disea se and c ommitt ed duty -to-assist err ors in f a ili ngto p ro vid e a

me dic a l e xami natio n a

nd to o bta in certai n ser

vic e me dic a l r e c or ds (S MRs ) spec i fi cally

reque sted by

the appe llant. Howeve r, eve n assuming that in 1956 VA err ed in not
a dju dic a tin g su c h an e y e -d ise a se c la im, the a pp e lla nt h a s n ot d e mon str a te d a

re qu isi te e le me nt o f h is
c la im f or g ra ve pr oc e dura l e rr or , th a t in 19 56 VAha d a

mand a tor

y du ty to a ssi st –

wh e the r t o provide a medical e x amination or whe ther to obta in the appellant' s SMR s or to notify the appe llant if SMRs t hat had be en re quested we re not found. See Cook v. Principi , 258 F.3d 1311, 1315 ( Fe d. Cir. 2001) (burde n is on appellant to support claim that in 1952 RO was re quired to conduc t medical examination to fulfill duty to assist).
The appellant appea

rs to be lieve that the Court in its Septembe r 7, 1999, opinion determined that his asserted c laim for ser vice c onn ection for

ey e disea se had be en adjudicated in 1956. The Court held, howeve r, that the a ppellant' s 1956 claim for se rvice connec tion for " poor vision" ( Record
a t3 1 ) w a s f

u l l y a d j u d i c at e d b y t h e R O a s a

c l a i mf o r s e r v i c e c o n n e c t i o nf

o r d e f e c t i v e v i s i o no n l y. Be cause the Court, in essence , conclude d that the appe llant ha d made no claim in 1956 for se rvice
connec tion for ey e disea se (a deter mination with which I continue to a g ree ), there is no merit to the appellant' s arguments that VA wa s require d to adjudicate a ny such ey e-disea se cla im, to apply the presumptions of soundness and a g g ravation to the facts of suc h an ey e-disea se claim, or to apply the ratingschedule to that disease. Ne verthe less, I note that it does appe ar that in 1970 the RO purported to reope n his 1956 claim but then adjudicated a claim for non-ser vice- connec ted pension based on blindness due to ey e dis ease , thus leaving open the que stion of whether a cla im to reopen a pr e vio us ly

and fi na lly dis a llo we d c la im f

or po or vi sion a

nd a ne w c la im f

or e y e dis e a se re ma in pending . Reg ardle ss, Ifurther note that it appea

rs t hat t he appe llant has filed (a s part of his Notice of Disag ree ment as to the Nove mber 1993 RO denial of his c laim of clea r and unmistakable e rror in the 1956 RO decision) a claim for se rvice connec ti o n fo r h i s ey e disease a nd that VA has not
a dju dic a te d th a t c la im.4