Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2009/04/12/fedcir-informal-claim-3155-and-3157-psychologist-report-lechliter-v-peake-no-2008-7024/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:23:13+00:00

Document:
the psychologist’s report cannot be interpreted as an informal claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a), because it did not “identify the benefit sought.” The DVA regulations also provide that until a “formal claim for pension or compensation has been allowed or . . . disallowed,” a “[r]eport of examination or hospitalization by DVA or uniformed services” cannot serve as an informal claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.157(b)(1). See MacPhee v. Nicholson, 459 F.3d 1323, 1327-8 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, a formal claim had not been allowed or disallowed at the time of the psychologist’s report; for that reason, the report did not constitute an informal claim.
Gerald A. Lechliter, of Lewes, Delaware, pro se.
her on the brief were Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne E.
Davidson, Director; and Todd M. Hughes, Deputy Director.
Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr..NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”), which affirmed a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the BVA”). We affirm.
October 1999 granted service connection for various disabilities, resulting in a disability rating of 50 percent. However, the rating board denied his claim for service connection for hyperlipidemia, a history of positive stress tests, and pre-syncopal episodes on the ground that they were not compensable disabilities. The regional office subsequently denied his claim to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected residuals of a left-elbow disorder. In November 1999, Mr. Lechliter filed a Notice of Disagreement with the October 1999 rating decision.
remainder of the BVA’s decision.
as to those three claims.
C.F.R. § 3.1(r). Here, the BVA found and the Veterans Court confirmed that Mr.
from the service in May 1999.
recognize an “informal claim” if it “identifies the benefits sought.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a).
psychologist’s report should have been accepted as an informal claim.
We disagree, for several reasons. The portion of the DVA Manual to which Mr.
grade level GS-13 or higher) are competent to diagnose or evaluate mental disorders.
serve as an earlier claim.
violation of the statutory duty to assist.
record and his separation examination.
a depression condition. That task is outside of our jurisdiction.
depression claim should therefore get an earlier effective date for service connection.
The rating board’s consideration of the three listed conditions, for which Mr. Lechliter’s medical records reflected diagnoses and treatment, does not indicate that the DVA was on notice of other conditions such as depression. For the same reason, we reject Mr.
medical record did not put the DVA on notice of his depression claim.
reject that contention as baseless.
to the contrary does not suggest that the court applied the regulation incorrectly.
apply the “substantially gainful employment” standard correctly.
rehabilitation assessment in a TDIU assessment.
contentions that are not within our jurisdiction to review.
misinterpreted DVA Manual M21-1, Part VI, 2.07(b) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a) because the decision review officer substituted his own judgment for that of the medical examiner. The crux of Mr. Lechliter’s argument, however, is that the decision review officer should have accorded more weight to an MRI examination performed in June 2002 and should have ordered another evaluation to study the significance of the MRI.
Mr. Lechliter also argues that under 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 he was entitled to a higher rating because the regulation allows higher ratings based on pain and he asserts that he has pain. Once again, these arguments are factual in nature; Mr. Lechliter has not pointed to any improper interpretation of rules or regulations, but simply contends that the application of those authorities should have resulted in a different outcome in his case.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the Veterans Court.

References: § 3
 § 3
 v. 
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 4