Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2010/07/02/hearing-officers-duties-bryant-v-shinseki-no-08-4080/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 10:40:48+00:00

Document:
Board can’t consider new legal theories!
designed to protect'” (quoting Intercargo Ins. Co. v. United States, 83 F.3d 391, 396 (Fed. Cir.1996))); cf. Shinseki, 129 S. Ct. at 1708 (indicating as a factor for determining notice-error prejudice, the identification of evidence that might have been obtained or sought if proper notification had been given); Wagner v. United States, 365 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that “[w]here the effect of an error on the outcome of a proceeding is unquantifiable . . . , we will not speculate as to what the outcome might have been had the error not occurred”).
Florida, was on the brief for the appellant.
of Washington, D.C., for the appellee.
Before KASOLD, LANCE, and DAVIS, Judges.
The opinion of the Court is per curiam.
LANCE, Judge, filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
in part and the matters remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
this opinion generally addresses them in the context of a Board hearing.
1950 to October 1951. R. at 387, 394.
In February 2005, he filed a formal application for compensation benefits. R. at 357-68.
did not show this condition occurred in or was caused by service. R. at 244.
although there was no VA (or other) medical opinion to this effect. R. at 4.
overcome to receive a favorable decision (Oral Argument at 12:18-43).
the submission of such evidence.” Oral Argument at 28:14-31.
provided pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a).
he wishes, subject only to the limits imposed by the statute.”).
observations will be read into the record.
38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2) (emphasis added).
hearing officer to preadjudicate or otherwise weigh conflicting evidence prior to or at the hearing.
of the need to submit evidence on a material issue for which there is no evidence in the record.
completeness of the hearing record,” which is one of the implicit duties imposed by § 3.103(c)(2).
interpretation of its own regulation is entitled to substantial deference”).
submit evidence only to those situations when the existence of such evidence is raised at the hearing.
and citations omitted)). Moreover, applicable caselaw shows that such inaction is not permissible.
regulation did not apply to the Board. Douglas v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 435, 437 (1992) (en banc).
submission of additional evidence he may have overlooked that would have helped his case.” Id.
veteran had testified that a hearing test in 1985 or 1986 had confirmed a hearing loss.
evidence, the Court held that the hearing officer was nonetheless required to reiterate this concept.
condition caused him to refuse medication for illnesses, and that this refusal resulted in his death.
testimony suggested that it might be obtained to corroborate the incident described.
particularly medical evidence in support of her claim. Id. at 382.
review of the record, will likely assist the hearing officer in identifying the outstanding issues.
of Thomas’s conduct.” Id. at 1285.
of evidence that may have been overlooked. See Cuevas, supra; see also Section C, infra.
To the extent the above scope of the duties to fully explain the issues and suggest the submission of evidence may not have been stated or held explicitly in prior cases, we so state and hold today.
claims were denied by the RO. Accordingly, the Board member erred as to the first duty – to fully explain the issues – under § 3.103(c)(2).
The Board stated that there was no evidence of a current diagnosis 4 for squamous cell carcinoma. R. at 12.
However, a careful review of the appellant’s VA medical records indicates that on October 16, 2003, the appellant underwent a biopsy of an “8mm erythematous papule mid upper back/neck area.” R. at 302-03. A November 25, 2003, medical record states: “[P]athology came back as [B]owen’s with incomplete margins.” R. at 296; see also R. at 287. Bowen’s Disease is a type of squamous cell carcinoma. See DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY 536 (31st ed. 2007).
that its submission may have been overlooked) requires any weighing or evaluation of the evidence.
although he had hearing loss and tinnitus, these disabilities were not caused by his service.
hearing officer’s failure to do so was error.4 See Sizemore, Costantino, and Cuevas, all supra.
The Court must next consider whether the appellant was prejudiced by the Board’s errors. See 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(2); Shinseki v. Sanders, 129 S. Ct. 1696, 1704 (2009). In his brief, the Secretary argues that the notice letters provided to the appellant under section 5103(a) eliminate any potential prejudice that might have been caused by the Board member’s failure to explain the issues because they sufficiently explained the need for the appellant to submit medical evidence.
(remand unnecessary “[i]n the absence of demonstrated prejudice”); see also Mlechick v. Mansfield, 503 F.3d 1340, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Court must review the record to take due account of the rule of prejudicial error).
purpose of § 3.103(c)(2) was fulfilled. See Thomas and Marcinak, both supra; see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 (1995), aff’d per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (service connection generally requires, inter alia, medical nexus).
against his claim. Congress or the Secretary might create such a duty, but as noted in our discussion above, they have not yet done so. Cf. Locklear, supra.
LANCE, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I believe that the majority does an excellent job in many respects in clarifying our previously disjointed caselaw on 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2) (2009). However, I think the opinion suffers from two serious problems.
evaluation of the evidence and some judgment about which issues are reasonably in dispute.
provide a full explanation of the issues.
findings of fact that would affect the type of evidence that the claimant must submit. 20 Vet.App.
issues. If the RO addressed multiple theories as to a claim, the Board would have to explain the issues related to each theory.
I believe that such a standard would be vastly easier for the Board to apply and for the Court to review. While there are certainly cases where the Board may ultimately spot an issue that was completely overlooked by the RO, the Court has recently held that the Secretary’s regulations prevent the Board from considering new legal theories in the first instance. Hickson v. Shinseki, 23 Vet.App.
394, 400-03 (2010). Thus, even if the Board later determines that the RO decision overlooked an issue, the claimant must receive notice of the issue and the opportunity to have it remanded to the RO. Id. Accordingly, even if a bright-line, Kent-style rule does not perfectly capture every issue, claimants are still protected from being blindsided by a Board decision that raises a new issue.
important that the Board member explain the need for favorable evidence in order for the claimant to have a realistic opportunity to prevail on the claim. See Moore v. Shinseki, 555 F.3d 1369, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (concluding that failure to obtain potentially favorable, circumstantial evidence was prejudicial even though the record contained copious direct evidence against the claim).
needed to do so. The fact that he did not submit such evidence earlier tends to suggest that is the case. In my view, there does not appear to be any explanation for creating the duty “to explain fully the issues” except to neutralize the inference that the failure to submit evidence was the product of ignorance. Under the totality of the circumstances in this case, it appears that Mr. Bryant’s failure to submit favorable medical evidence may be the product of ignorance and, therefore, he was potentially prejudiced by the violation of the duty directly targeted at avoiding such a situation.
explaining the issue. Accordingly, I would remand all of the appellant’s claims based upon the Court’s conclusion that the Board erred so that the appellant would have a meaningful opportunity to present rebuttal evidence on the key issues in his claims.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 5103
 § 3
 § 3
 v. 
 § 3
 § 7261
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 v.