UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O

. 04-0957

P A U L W. H YA TT , A PP EL L ANT ,

V

. J A M ES B. P EA KE , M.D., S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE , J UL I ANN E H YA TT , M OVANT

Be fore KASOL D, HAGE L , and LANCE, Judges

.

O R D E R

On J une 7, 2004, Mr. Hyatt filled a Notice of Appea l of an April 26, 2004, decision of the Boa rd of Ve tera

ns' Appea ls (Boa

rd). On Aug ust 6, 2007, a panel of this Court issued a dec ision on this appeal. On Au gu s t 29, 2007, the Court enter ed its judgme nt. On October 11, 2007, the repr esente d m o vant, Mrs. Hyatt, notified the Court that Mr. Hyatt had died on August 24, 2007;
acc ording ly , Mrs. Hy att filed motions for substitut ion of party and for judg ment to be re -issued nunc pr o tu nc . O n O c tob e r 2 5, 20 07 , the Se c re tary fi le d r e sp on se s in

op po sit ion

to M rs . H y a tt' s mo tio ns

. In response to a

n order of the Court, the pa

rties submitted additional briefingreg ardingthe impact of the Court' s rec ent decision in Pek ular on the pendingmotions. Pe k ula r v . M an sfi e ld , 21 Vet.App. 495 (2007) ( instit uting a

three -par t test to gove rn whe ther substitution i s appropr iate).
"[ A] vet eran 's cla im to di sab il it y ben efi ts termi nat es at deat h. " Ri c ha rd v . W est , 161 F.3d 71 9, 72 2 ( F e d. Cir . 1 99 8) . H ow e ve r, 38 U. S.C. § 51 21 a llo ws qu a lif ie d surv ivo rs of the ve te ra n to seek pa y ment of ac crue d benef

its owed to that veter an at the time of the ve tera n' s death. Seym our v. Principi , 2 4 5 F. 3 d 1377, 1379 (F ed. Cir. 2001). Sec tion 5121(a) spe cifica lly limit s acc rued benef its to i nclude only

that "to whic h an individual was e ntitled at death under exis ting r ating s or decisions or those ba sed on evide nce i n the file at date of de ath and . . . due and unpaid." 38 U. S.C. § 5 12 1; se e Ha ine s v . W est , 154 F.3d 1298, 1300 ( Fe d. Cir. 1998). When the Court issued the August 6, 2007, decision in Mr

. Hy att' s appea l, it deter mined that a re mand was ne cessa ry so that VAc ou ld c omp ly

wi th i ts d uty to as sis t by ob ta ini ng ano the r se rv ic e me mbe r' s c ourt -m art ia l r e c or ds , wh ic h a re po te nti a lly

re le va nt t o the natur e and

e xtent of Mr . H y a tt' s w ound s r e c e ive d d ur inghis service

. Hyatt v. Nicholson , 21 Vet.App. 390, 395 (2007). As Mrs. Hy att' s accru ed b en ef i ciary claim is statutorily limit ed to decisions and evidenc e in the fil e at the date of Mr. H y att' s death, she asks to be substitut ed and that judgme nt be re- issued nunc pro tunc in Mr. Hy att' s appea l so that her 51 21 (a ) c la im m ay

be ne fi t f ro m th e Cou

rt ' s d e c isi on

on Mr . H ya tt' s a

pp e a l. The U.S. Court of Appe als for the Fe dera l Circuit h el d t h at this Court may issue nunc pro tun c re lie f whe re a

ve te ra n d ie s a ft e r h is c a se is s ub mitte d f or de c isi on , b ut b e fo re the o pin ion is2

issued. Padgett v. Nicholson , 473 F.3d 1364, 1369 (F ed. C ir. 2007). For the C ourt to issue judgment as of the date of the ve tera n' s death, (1) the veter an must have died afte r his case was submitted for decision, (2) substitut ion must be appropr iate in that the person seeking substitut ion must have standing both under Ar

ticle I I Iof t he U.S. Constitut ion and by beingadver sely

aff ecte d by the underlying B oard de cision under 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) , and (3) the consider ati o n s of justice and fairne ss outlined by

the Supreme Court in Mi tc he ll v. Ov erman , 103 U.S. 62, 64- 65 (1880), must be satisfied. Pek

ular , 21 Vet.App. at 500-01.

There is no dispute here that Mr. Hy att' s case was submitted for de cision befor e he die d. Mr. Hy att died af

ter the Court issued its opinion in his case , but five day s befor e judg ment was e ntere d in th e m at t er. A t issue instead is whether the substituti on of Mrs. Hyatt is appropriate. The Secre tary argues that Mrs. Hyatt lacks suff icient Article I I Istanding to be properly substitut ed in Mr. Hy att' s appe al

. Article I I Iof the Constituti on g rants fe dera l courts jurisdiction over " case s" a nd "c ontroversie s." U .S. Const . Art. I I I , § 2, cl. 1. This Court, althoug h an Article Icourt c reated by
s tatute , h a s a d o p te d " th e ju r is d ic ti o n a l r e s tr ic ti o n s o f th e A rti c le I I I c a s e o r c o n tr o v e rsy rubric." Mokal v . Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 ( 1990). To satisfy the "irreduc ible constitutional mi nimum of st anding ," a litigant must demonstrate three elements. Luj an v

. De fe nd e rs o f W ild lif e , 5 04 U. S. 55 5, 56 0 (19 92 ). F ir st, the c omp la ina nt m us t ha ve su ff e re d a n " inj ur y in f a c t" that is bo th " c on c re te andpart icu lar iz ed. " Id. (q u o t i n g Allen v. W right , 4 6 8 U. S

. 7 3 7, 756 (1984). " The injury alleg ed
m u s t b e . . . d is ti nctandpal pab le,

. . . an d n otabs tr actor co nj ectural or h y po th eti cal ." Allen, 468 U.S. at 751 (citations om itted). Second, ther e must be a c ausal re lationship between the injury and the conduc t of the def

endant. Lujan , 5 04 U. S. at 560

. Th ir d, it mus t be " lik e ly " that th e inj ur y wi ll be "'redres sed by

a fav orab le d eci si on .'" Id. (q u o t i n g Simon v. E. Ky. W elfare Rights Org. , 4 26 U. S. 26, 38 (1976))

.
In Pa dge tt , the cour

t determined that "[t] he continuing rele vance and pre clusive ef fec t that the issues dec ided in Padg ett' s appea l have for [ Mrs. Padg ett' s] s ection 5121(a ) cla im are suf ficient to meet the ' case or controve rsy ' require ment" pursuant t o Article I I I . 473 F.3d at 1370. Howeve r, Mr. Hy att' s appea l stands in a very differ ent pos ture than tha t of Mr. Padg ett. In Mr. Padg ett' s case , the Court re vers ed th e B oa

rd ' s d e c isi on

and g ra nte d s e c on da

ry se rv ic e c onne c tio n f

or a ri g ht- hip disability

. See id. at 1366. I ssuing the de cision nunc pro tunc e ffe ctively g rante d ben ef

i t s to Mr. Pad g ett befor e his death, which then bec ame " due and unpa id" f or purpose s of Mrs. Padg ett' s 5121(a) claim. This, of cour se, had c ontinuing re levanc e to Mrs. Padg ett' s 5121(a) clai m beca use such a claim is statutorily

predic ated e ntirely on benef its due , based on de cisions or evidenc e in the file at the time of the ve tera

n' s death. He re, Mr . Hy att' s appea l does n o t h av e t he same continuing rele vance to Mrs. Hy att' s 5121(a) claim. Whether or not the Court issues judg ment nunc pro tunc to the day prior to Mr. Hyatt' s death, ther e is no imminent gra nt of entitlement to service connec tion as there was in Pa dge tt

. Ad dit ion a lly , the re is no furt he r ev ide nc e fo r the B oa

rd to co ns ide r b e c a

us e th e acc ru edb en ef

i t s cl ai mi s ex p l i ci t l y

l i m i t edt o th e e v i d en ce "i nth e f i l e" a tth e d at e o f t h e v et er an 's death–whic h does not include the c ourt m ar t i al records that the Court orde red V A to obtain on
re mand . A c c or din g ly , th e re wa s n oth ingde c ide d in Mr . H y a tt' s a

pp e a l th a t wou ld have the re qu isi te "c ontinuing re levanc e" to Mrs. Hy att' s 5121(a) claim. Pa dge tt , 473 F.3d at 1370.3

As the Fe dera l Circuit ex plained in Pelea v . Nicholson , m ak i n g th i s C o urt ' s jud g me nt i n Pa dge tt e ff e c tiv e nunc pr o tu

nc " me ant t

hat pr ior to h is deat h, [Mr .] Pa dg e tt h a d e sta bli sh e d h is
e nti tle me nt t o d isa

bil ity ben efits. Un de r t

he sta tut or y sc he me , h is w ido w c ou ld r e c ov e r t ho se benef its." 497 F.3d 1290, 1293 (F ed. Cir. 2007)

. The court contra sted the situation in Pa dge tt wi th the widow in Pelea , w ho die d wh ile se e kin g de pe nd e nc y and ind e mni ty c omp e ns a tio n a nd wh os e estate soug ht to be sub s t ituted in her plac e. The Fe dera l Circuit affirme d this Court's denial of substitut ion be cause , althoug h Mrs. Pelea ha d not reque sted that our judg ment be re issued nunc pro tunc to a date prior t o h er d ea t h , t h e court pointed out that eve n if the judg ment in her fa vor we re made e ffective nunc pr o tunc to the date of her de ath, she would still not be entitled to accr ued benef its because this Court had only deter mined that the Boa

rd should f

urther consider whether

VA had adequately informed her what additional evidenc e she should submit to support her claim. Id. The court rea soned that "she still was a long way from establishing either that her de cea sed husband hadservedin th e Un it ed S tat es m il it ary or t hathi s d eat h wa s co nn ect ed w it h s uch servi ce." Id.

Th e same is tr ue for

Mr s. Hya tt. Ou

r d iss e nti ngc oll e a g ue a ssume s th a t a c qu ir ingc e rt a in court-ma rtial rec ords of a

nother ser

vice membe r would be d i s p o s i t ive of the c laim. Dissenting opinion at 4, po st (" In the normal course of events, afte r issuance of the Hy att decision, the Sec reta

ry would secur e the court-ma rtial rec ords and a decision would be re ndere d.") . Howeve r, as in Pelea , Mrs. Hy att is a long way fr o m p re v ai l i ng on her c laim. For Mr . Hy att' s claim to be g rante d, thus entitling Mrs. Hy att to acc rued be nefits, eve n if judg ment is issued nunc pro tunc, a medical opinion
w o u l d s t i l l b e r e qu i r e d

t o e v a l u a t e w h e th e r

th e i n j ur i e s d e s c r i b e d i n th e c o urt

- m art i a l r e p o rt , i f an y, re su lte d in o r c on tr ibute d to the c ur re ntl y c la ime d d isa

bil ity . Su

bs tit uti on wo uld no t a ff e c t Mr s. Hy att' s acc rued be nefits claim beca use, even if we wer e to pe rmit he r substitut ion and the sea rch f or the cour t-martial re cords wa s succe ssful, there would still be insufficient e vidence in the rec ord at the time of Mr. Hyatt' s death to justify an aw ard of

benef its. See3 8 U

. S

. C

. § 5 1 2 1

. F o r th e se rea sons, the Court holds that subst itution i s not appropriate. As Mrs. Hy att cannot be substitut ed, nunc pr o tunc re lief is also inappr opriate due to the g ener al rule that a veter an' s claim for be nefits ends with his death. Pa dge tt , 473 F.3d at 1370. As Mr . H y a tt h a s d ie d a

nd no su bs tit uti on of Mr s. Hya tt c an b e ma de , Mr. Hy att 's app e a l is moo t. There fore , the Court will dismiss Mr

. Hy att' s appea l f or lack of jurisdiction. As Mr. Hy att' s appea l
wa s mo ote d d

ue to h is d e a th a

nd be c a us e we ho ld that Mr s. Hya tt c ann ot b e su bs tit ute d, bo th circ umstances that are not due to the vol untary conduct of the parties, justice require s that any prior decision in the case be withdrawn or va cate d. U. S. Ba nc or p M or tg. Co. v . B on ne r M

all Pa rtn e rsh ip , 51 3 U .S. 18 , 2 5 ( 19 94 ) ( " A p art y wh o s e e ks re vie w o f t

he me ri ts of an adv ers e ru lin g , b ut i s frustrated by

the vag arie s of circ umstances, oug h t n o t i n fa i rness be forc ed to ac quiesce in the j u d gm en t

. ")

. Ac co rd i n gl y , th e C o urt wi th dra ws i t s Au gu s t 6 , 2 0 0 7 , d ec i s i o n an d v ac at es th e B o ar d 's underlying O ctober

27, 2005, decision to preve nt it from actingas a ba rrier t o the succ ess of a

ny claimant see king a ccr

ued bene fits.

Ac c or din g ly , it

is

ORDERED that the Court' s Aug ust 6, 2007, decision is W I THDRAWN. I t is furtherT h e m a jo rity m isc o n stru e m y sta te m e n t an d a p p a re n tly m isu n d e rs ta n d m y d isse n t. C o n tra ry to the ir 1 ch ara cteriza t i o n, I do no t b eli ev e the a d d i t i o n o f t he co urt- m arti al rec o rd s n e c e ssa rily wi l l be dis p o si t i ve o f t he

c la im . It i s p o ssib le tha t t h e c o u rt-m a rtia l re c o rd s w ill a d d no thin g m a te ria l t o the fi le , b u t i t i s a lso p o ssib le tha t i t wi l l add t he ver y i nf

ormat i on t he B oard n eeds t o gr ant an awa r d, an d t her ef ore i t coul d be di s po s i t i ve. W ho kn ows
w h a t t h e S e c r e t a r y or Boa r d m i g h t do i f t h a t i n f or ma t i on i s c on s i de r e d p a r t of t h e r e c or d? See 38 U

. S. C. § 5103A( d) (me d i cal exam not necessar y i f cl ai m can b e d eci d ed wi t ho ut i t ) and § 51 0 7 (b) (cl ai m ant ent i t l ed t o be nef i t of t he d o u b t); Sa vage v. G ob er , 10 V et

. App. 488, 495- 96 ( 1997) ( i n c er t ai n c i r cu ms t an ce s , n ex u s ma y be e s t abl i s h ed by la y e v id e n c e ); cf. D i sa b l ed A m

. V etera n s v. Se c'y o

f V etera n s A

f f a i rs , 419 F. 3d 1317, 1318 ( Fe d. Ci r

. 2005) ( 38 U .S .C . § 7 1 0 4 (a ) e n su re s " o n e re v ie w o n a p p e a l t o the S e c re ta ry" ); W ag ner v. Uni t ed St at es , 365 F. 3d 1358 ( Fe d. Ci r

. 2004) ( f

i n di n g h ar ml es s e r r or a n al y s i s i n appos i t e i n c i r cu ms t an ce w h er e dec i s i on ma k er w as n ot a ppoi n t ed by p rop er aut ho ri t y ). T hus, unl i ke t he si t uat i o n i n P el ea , w h er e t h e appe l l an t c ou l d n ot be a wa r ded ben ef i t s ba s ed on t he C o urt’ s d ec i si o n that t he re h ad b ee n inad eq ua t e n o t i ce i n the u nd erlyi ng m erit s ca se, here , i t i s p o ssi b l e that M rs. H y at t c ou l d be a wa r ded ben ef i t s i f t h e cou r t

- mar t i al r ec or ds w er e con s i der ed par t of t h e cl ai ms f

i l e. Al t h ou g h n ot
necessar i l y dis p o si t i ve, as was t he case i n P a d g e tt , t h e s i t u at i on h er e i s mu ch c l os er t o P a d g e tt t h an t o P el ea , and und er t hese ci rcum st ances– where M rs

. H y at t cert ai nl y wi l l not b e award ed be nef i t s i f t he co urt

- m art i al record s are
n o t co n sid e re d p a rt o f t h e fi le a n d m igh t b e a w a rd e d b e n e fit s if the y a re

– M rs . H ya tt h a s a p e rs o n a l stak e in this mat t er an d s ubs t i t ut i on i s appropri at e.
4 ORDERED that the Court' s J anuar y 16, 2008, stay

is lifted. I t is further

ORDERED that the Octobe r 27, 2005, B oard de cision is VACATED with respe ct to the matters appe aled to the Court; and this appe al is DI SMI SSED for lack of jurisdiction.

DA TE D: July

22 , 2 00 8 PER CU RIAM

. Kasold, Judge , dissenting: A 2005 B oard de cision denied Mr. Hy att disability compensation for his lumbar spine disability beca use there was " ' no medical, or consistent lay

evidenc e, of the nat ure and ex ten t of' th e wou nd to Mr. Hy att 's back th at he suff ered in servi ce." Hyatt v. Nicholson , 21 Vet.App. 390, 395 ( 2007). Mr. Hyatt' s in-service wound was the result of a ne g lige nt stabbing by a fellow service member who was disciplined by court-ma rtial. Id . at 392. B eca

use cour t-martial
r e c o r d s i n v o l v i n g ani n

j ur y f r e qu e nt l y c o n t a i ne v i d e n c e r e g ar d i n g th e e x t e n tan d n a tur e o f th a ti n j u r y, the Court held that t hese recor ds wer e relevant to Mr. Hy att' s claim and that it was error not to sec ure them. Id . G ive n th e B oa

rd ' s st a te d b a sis fo r d e nyingMr . H y a tt' s c la im, it i s c le arl y po ssi ble that if the cour t-martial re cords r evea l the nature and extent of Mr. Hy att' s wound, the Boa rd might find that his lum ba r s pine d is abi li ty

wa s se rv ic e c onne c te d. Suc h a fi nd ingwo uld

g ive ri se to d isa

bil ity compensation.

In the normal c ourse of

events, a fter issuanc e of the Hy att de c ision , th e Se c re tary

wo uld
secur e the c ourt-mar

tial rec ords and a decision would be rendere d. In this inst ance , howeve r, Mr. 1 Hy att died shortly

afte r the Hy att decision issued

. Al t h o u g h Mr. Hy att' s widow is entitled to any
a c c ru e d b e ne fi ts o we d to Mr

. Hya tt that have no t be e n pa id, any de te rm inatio n ma de wi th r e g ard to
acc rued be nefits is based on the f ile at the time of de ath. See 38 U. S.C. § 512 1( a ) (a c c ru e d b e ne fi ts include bene fits " to which an individual wa s entitled at death under exis ting rating s or decisions or those based on e vidence in the file at the date of death" ). Obviously , Mrs. Hy att has a per sonal, nong ener alized interest in havingthe court-ma rtial rec ords consider ed whe n the deter mination on her
acc rued be nefits i s re n d ere d, beca use her husband' s claim alre ady

has bee n denied on the r ecor d5

without the court-mar

tial rec ords. See Padgett v. Nicholson , 473 F.3d 1364, 1370 ( Fe d. Cir. 2007) (" I t is re asonable to suspe ct that the RO and the boar d would also reje ct Mrs. Padg ett' s claim absent th e con tr ol li ng effect of t he E n Ban c Op in io n. ")

Ac c or dingl y , Mrs

. Hya tt s e e ks to b e su bs tit ute d in thi s c a se fo r h e r d e c e a se d hus ba nd in further ance of her

arg ument that the Hy att de c isi on wi ll c a us e the Se c re tary

to c on sid e r t

he c ourt

martial docume nts as part of the claims file. Appellant' s Motion at 3. I f substitut ion is denied and the Hy att case withdrawn, the n there is no argument for consideration of the court- martial re cords by the Secr etar

y . On the other hand, should Mr s. Hy att be substituted for her late husband a

nd the Hy att c a s e n o tb e w i th dr a

w n , s h e c o u l d p r e s e n t h e r ar g u m e n tb e l o w( an d l a t e r o na p p e a l i f n e c e s s ar y) that the court-martial records are part of the claims file by virtue of the Hy att

decision beingrende red befor e her husba

nd died. Cf

. Bell v. De rwinski , 2 Vet.App. 611, 612- 13 (1992) ( per c uriam orde r) (holding that documents that wer e either g ener ated by the Secre tary or submitt ed prior to a Bo ard de c isi on we re statut or ily

pa rt of the re c or d of pr oc e e din g s bef or e the Se c re tary and

the B oa rd a s to that decision).

Whether re cords or

documents maintained by the g overnme nt and held by the Court to have been e rrone ously

not obtained by

the Secr etar

y m i gh t b e dee med par

t of the re cord f

or ac crue d benef its purposes when a

n appellant dies shor

tly afte r issuance of the Court' s decision and be fore the documents ar e phy sically obtained has not y et bee n decide d, but Mrs. Hy att' s persona l, nong ener alized interest in this matter provides her standing and wa

rra nts substi tution. E.g. , Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) ( to establish standing, plaintiff must a lleg e a pa rticularized injury

and a

" pe rs on a l st ake " in t

he dis pute ); P a d

g et t v. N i ch o l s on , 4 7 3 F .3d 1364, 1370 (2007) ( potential acc rued benef its beneficia

ries have standing if adve rsely aff ecte d by Boa rd dec ision). The majority ' s relianc e on Pelea v. Nicholson , 4 97 F .3 d 1 29 0, 12 93 (F e d. Cir .2 00 7) , is misplaced. Pelea involved a ca se in which this Court held t hat t he Secr etar y inadequately

notified the claimant a

bout additional information that might be submitted in support of the claim, and the matter wa s remande d. Mrs. Pelea die d shortly there afte r and the Court denied her estate' s motion fo r sub s t i tu t i o n

. 4 9 7 F. 3 d at1 2 9 1 -9 2

. On ap p ea l , th e F ed er al C i rc u i tn o t edth atev en i f t h i s C o u rt 's decision we re issued nunc pro tunc a nd substitut ion were g rante d, it would have no im p ac t on an awa rd of be nefits bec ause this C ourt' s decision m ere ly held that notice ha d been ina dequate

. Id . at 1293. Otherw ise stated, the Pelea decision added nothing to the rec ord. In con t ra s t , the Hy att decision held that the court-mar tial rec ords should have be en obtained by the Secr etar

y and
c on sid e re d. Gi ve n th e e xplic it b a sis fo r t he B oa rd ' s den ia l of M r. Hya tt' s c la im, the se re c or ds c ou ld indeed ha ve a dir ect impac t on Mrs. Hy att' s acc rued be nefits claim, if de emed pa rt of the r ecor d.

F or the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , I dis se nt fr om the or de r d e ny ingMr s. Hya tt s ub sti tut ion in t his matter.