Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-234_2b8e.pdf
Page Number: 9

6 

GEORGE v. MCDONOUGH 

Opinion of the Court 

that this category of error does not encompass a subsequent 
“change in law . . . or a change in interpretation of law.”  38 
CFR §3.105 (Cum. Supp. 1963).  And for good reason: Dur-
ing the many years when clear and unmistakable error was 
purely a creature of regulation, the governing statutes gen-
erally  did  not  allow  “[n]ew  or  recently  developed  facts  or 
changes in the law” to “provide a basis for revising a finally 
decided  case.”  Russell  v.  Principi,  3  Vet.  App.  310,  313
(1992) (en banc) (citing 38 U. S. C. §§5108, 7104).  To stay
within that statutory constraint, authorities dating back to
1928 confirm that “[a] determination that there was ‘clear 
and unmistakable error’ must be based on the record and 
the law that existed at the time of the prior [VA] decision.” 
3  Vet.  App.,  at  314  (emphasis  added);  see  38  CFR
§20.1403(b) (similar); Veterans’ Bureau Reg. No. 187, pt. 1,
§7155  (requiring  “clear  and  unmistakable  error  shown  by 
the evidence in file at the time the prior decision was ren-
dered”).  So, for example, the VA’s failure to apply an exist-
ing regulation to undisputed record evidence could consti-
tute  clear  and  unmistakable  error.  E.g.,  Myler  v. 
Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 571, 574–575 (1991).  But a subse-
quent  legal  change  could  not,  because  “only  the  ‘law  that 
existed at the time’ of the prior adjudication . . . can be con-
sidered” in this posture.  Damrel v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 242,
246 (1994).  Or as the Veterans Court summed up, shortly
before the enactment of the 1997 statute: A “new interpre-
tation of law . . . from a case decided in 1993 could not pos-
sibly be the basis of [clear and unmistakable] error in 1969,” 
as “a simple recitation of the time sequence” should “make
. . . clear.”  Berger v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 166, 170 (1997).

The  invalidation  of  a  prior  regulation  constitutes  a
“change  in  interpretation  of  law”  under  historical  agency 
practice.  Drawing on decades of history, the VA succinctly
explained nearly 30 years ago that review for clear and un-
mistakable error provides “no authority . . . for retroactive