Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2009/03/21/medical-treatise-pritchet-gilbert-sammarco-hatlestad/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 13:03:37+00:00

Document:
Richard G. Pritchett, pro se.
Foehl were on the pleadings for appellee.
Before HOLDAWAY, IVERS, and STEINBERG, Associate Judges.
concurring in part and dissenting in part, filed separately.
service connection for schizophrenia and non-service-connected pension.
BVA) for further action consistent with this opinion.
Appellant served in the Army from July 10, 1967, to April 19, 1970.
references to an in-service psychiatric disorder in the record.
respond to treatment and subsequently was transferred to another hospital.
his medication, resumed his fast and became progressively more mute. R.
at 47. In June, 1980, he was re-admitted at the request of his family.
month later, but the conservatorship remained in effect until June, 1981.
continued his therapy, and was not taking any medication. R. at 55-58.
appellant to be hospitalized for one month.
the Veterans’ Administration (now Department of Veterans Affairs)(VA). R.
name and address of appellant’s treating psychiatrist. R. at 29.
records from private hospitals and conducted its own psychiatric exam.
appellant’s written statements regarding the onset of his illness.
illness was present while appellant was in the service.
onset of the currently diagnosed schizophrenia.” R. at 70-71.
delineated each and every point with which appellant disagreed.
G. Pritchett, BVA 90-18990, at 4 (Jun. 11, 1990).
Appellant’s Statement at 1. Appellee has not opposed the motion.
be placed under seal to be opened only as directed by the Court.” 38 U.S.C.
ignore our obligation to both the public and to our veteran appellants.
portions of the record in a case before us.
so ably pointed out by the dissent, relies on an analogy to Fed. R. Civ. P.
balance the conflicting demands regarding access to court records.
contemporaneous public access to it.
public for inspection and copying.” Willie Nelson Music Company v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 85 T.C. 914, 917 (1985), quoting Nixon v.
applicable to virtually every type of case. See Ex Parte Drawbaugh, 2 App.
parties involved — that best balances the competing interests.
accessible only to the Court and the parties for purposes of this case.
or portions thereof, sealed, we will undertake the task.
addressed in the order referred to above.
degree of ten percent within one year of discharge. Motion at 4-5.
equipoise which would give the veteran the benefit of the doubt under 38 U.
114 (1991); Hatlestead, 1 Vet.App. at 170.
record contains only one such report, dated November 1986. R. at 103-104.
5107(a) (formerly ù 3007(a)); 38 C.F.R. ù 3.103(a) (1991).
representative that bradycardia could be a symptom of schizophrenia. R.
the-doubt doctrine, or articulation of reasons or bases.” Motion at 10.
1 Vet.App. 326, 333 (1991); 33 C.F.R. ù 3.151(a)(1991).
using an encoded identifier (such as “GH”).
opened as directed by the court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (emphasis added).
injury'”. Id. at 320 (quoting Avirgan v. Hull, 118 F.R.D. 252, 253 (1987)).
materials not obtained through discovery process); Kirshner v. Uniden Corp.
Ash v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 459 (1991) (“cases construing Rule 26(c) . . .
4 J. Moore, J. Lucas, and G. Grotheer, Jr., Moore’s Federal Practice 26.
seeking to seal records in this Court.
defined and serious injury” criterion.
codifies the existing common law presumption. Stam, 1 Vet.App. at 319.
underlying purpose, discussed in parts III and IV below.
biases for or against disclosure.” Valley Broadcasting, 798 F.2d at 1293.
Circuit in Belo Broadcasting Corp. v. Clark, 654 F.2d 423 (5th Cir. 1981).
with the standards employed by the Second and D.C. Circuits[ The D.
established an absolute constitutional right of access to court materials.
must be balanced against the factors militating against access'”); Stone v.
standard which supplied the basis of the Court’s holding.
F.2d at 1293. That case had little to do with “privacy interests”.
trial publicity. Valley Broadcasting, 798 F.2d at 1294-95.
sufficient significance to overcome the presumption”. Id. at 318, 320.
overcome the public’s interest in access to those judicial records. Cf.
far short in that regard.
public access. Majority op’n, ante, slip op. at 5; See Stam, 1 Vet.App.
the contours of the access right, Congress in the VJRA enacted 38 U.S.C.
open to the inspection of the public.
placed under seal to be opened only as directed by the Court.
emphasis added); majority op’n, ante, slip op. at 5.
in a suit or proceeding therein pending. . . .
the [Secretary] such disclosure is deemed necessary and proper.
in a vacuum when it enacted section 4068 (now section 7268) in the VJRA.
in these cases. Cf. United States Department of State v. Ray, 60 U.S.L.W.
38 C.F.R. ù 3.103(a) (1991).
information by VA “after deletion of the portions which are exempt”).
are generally extended special protection by VA regulations. See 38 C.F.R.
1991). Information in medical records is afforded special protection.
See 38 C.F.R. ùù 1.513, 1.513a, 1.514, 1.514a, 1.554(a)(6)(7) (1991).
health.” 38 C.F.R. ùù 1.513(b)(ix) (1991); see also 38 C.F.R. ùù 1.
Vet.App. at 91-92; Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 80 (1991); Moore v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 401, 405 (1991); Godwin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App.
claimant’s position”. 38 C.F.R. ù 3.103(c)(2) (1991). See DouglasNext Document v.
Derwinski, __ Vet.App. __, No. 90-678, slip op. at 11-12 (U.S. Vet. App.
their right to judicial review.
presumptively protected by section 7332.
case number and caption assigned by the Clerk.
U.S. Vet. App. R. 48(a) (emphasis added).
entails giving the case an alphabetized name, such as was done in EF v.
implications of a partial sealing and a full sealing of the record.
sensitive background information pertinent to the disposition of the case.
reluctance to disclose some of those details in the Court’s opinion.
seeking that access, and the Government does not oppose sealing).
opportunity for independent and objective review of VA benefits claims.
134 Cong. Rec. S16642, S16643 (daily ed. Oct. 18, 1988) (statement of Sen.
help ensure fairness to individual claimants before the VA”); 134 Cong.
H10342 (daily ed. Oct. 19, 1988) (statement of Rep. Montgomery).
the public in this Court’s records.
sealing motions likely to come before this Court.
upset to know that anyone could look at it or have copies made.
never told anyone-things I am only starting to tell my doctor.
appellant as a result of the information set forth in the Court’s opinion.
little to do with the reality of this case.

References: v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.