Source: https://helpdesk.vetsfirst.org/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=1874
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:01:14+00:00

Document:
A decision that has become final may not be reversed or revised in the absence of a showing of CUE. 38 U.S.C. § 7111(a). CUE "is a very specific and rare kind of error . . . that when called to the attention of later reviewers compels the conclusion, to which reasonable minds could not differ, that the result would have been manifestly different but for the error." 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403(a).
The Court has no jurisdiction to consider a CUE claim it in the first instance. 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a); Andrea v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that "each 'specific' assertion of CUE constitutes a claim that must be the subject of a decision by the [Board] before the Veteran's Court can exercise jurisdiction over it"); Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 310, 315 (1992) (en banc) (noting that "[t]he necessary jurisdictional 'hook' for this Court to act is a decision of the [Board] on the specific issue of 'clear and unmistakable error'").VA law allows a veteran  at any time  to request that a decision be reviewed and corrected if VA committed a "clear and unmistakable error" (often called a "CUE"). This is a very powerful right. Unfortunately, it is also a widely misunderstood and a misapplied right. A true CUE is not common and is a difficult claim to win.
the "duty to assist" does not apply. This means that VA does not help a claimant with a CUE claim.
Further, the alleged error must be "undebatable," not merely "a disagreement as to how the facts were weighed or evaluated." Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 310, 313-14 (1992) (en banc). The error must have "manifestly changed the outcome" of the decision being attacked on the basis of CUE at the time that decision was rendered. Id. at 313-14, 320; see Bustos v. West, 179 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (expressly adopting the "manifestly changed the outcome" language in Russell). A mere disagreement with how the facts were weighed or evaluated is not enough to substantiate a CUE claim. Damrel v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 242, 246 (1994).
(1) a changed diagnosis, where a "new medical diagnosis . . . 'corrects' an earlier diagnosis considered in a Board decision;"
Jordan v. Nicholson, 401 F.3d 1296, 1298-99 (Fed. Cir. 2005); cf. Cook, 318 F.3d at 1346 ("The requirements that [CUE] be outcome determinative and be based on the record that existed at the time of the original decision make it impossible for a breach of the duty to assist to form the basis for a CUE claim."); see also MacKlem v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 63 (2010); Damrel, 6 Vet. App. at 246; Fugo, 6 Vet. App. at 43-44.
When the Court reviews a Board determination that there was no CUE in a prior final decision, the Court's review is generally limited to determining whether the Board's conclusion is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3)(A), and whether it is supported by adequate reasons or bases. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); Joyce v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 36, 43-44 (2005); Lane v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 78, 83-84 (2002), aff'd, 339 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Eddy v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 52, 57 (1996); Archer v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 433, 437 (1992); Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 310, 315 (1992). However, whether the claimant has presented a valid CUE allegation and whether an applicable law or regulation was not applied are questions of law that are reviewed de novo. Joyce, 19 Vet. App. at 43; see also Kent v. Principi, 389 F.3d 1380, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that "a veteran's assertion of a particular clear and unmistakable error by the RO constitutes a distinct claim." Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Because the "Federal Circuit equates 'issue' with a 'claim' and not a theory or element of the claim," "an appellant has only one opportunity to raise any allegation of clear and unmistakable error for each claim decided in a Board decision and any subsequent attempt to raise a clear and unmistakable error challenge to the same claim contained in a Board decision will be dismissed with prejudice." Hillyard v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 343, 354 (2011); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1409(c). A claimant, thus, has only one chance to file a CUE claim on a prior decision. Id.
Although CUE does not require "pleading with exactitude," it nevertheless must be plead with "some degree of specificity." Jordan v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 261, 270-71 (2003) (finding that although "the liberal construction of a VA claimant's pleading must be tempered somewhat in CUE cases" that "does not require pleading with exactitude"); Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Assertions of CUE raised by counsel, however, are not entitled to a liberal reading. See Robinson v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (distinguishing between filings by counsel in direct appeals to the Board and assertions of CUE, and holding that filings in direct appeals to the Board must be read liberally, whether filed by counsel or claimant). Massie v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 123, 131 (2011); MODEL RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence); U.S. VET. APP. R. ADM. & PRAC. 4(a) (adopting the Model Rules of Professional Conduct as disciplinary standard for practice). Perfection of an appeal for a claim involving CUE involves the same steps as any other claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5109A(e) ("[CUE claims] shall be submitted to the Secretary and shall be decided in the same manner as any other claim."); see Andre, 301 F.3d at 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that "each 'specific' assertion of CUE constitutes a claim that must be the subject of a decision by the [Board] before the Veterans Court can exercise jurisdiction over it").
The VCAA does not apply to CUE actions. See Livesay v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 165 (2001) (en banc) (holding VCAA does not apply to Board CUE motions); Baldwin v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 302 (2001) (holding VCAA does not apply to RO CUE claims). In other words, the VA has no duty to assist claimants with CUE claims. See Livesay, 15 Vet. App at 178 (noting that the CUE "movant bears the burden of presenting . . . specific allegations of error"); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1404 ("The motion must set forth clearly and specifically the . . . errors, of fact or law in the Board decision, the legal or factual basis for such allegations, and why the result would have been manifestly different but for the alleged error."); see also Andrews v. Nicholson, 421 F.3d 1278, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that the duty to read pro se filings sympathetically applies to CUE motions); Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 85 (2009) (whether a sympathetic reading of a veteran's filing raises a valid claim is a factual inquiry, reviewed under the "clearly erroneous" standard).
The spouse of a deceased claimant has no right to file a CUE claim because "a survivor has no standing to request review of a decision affecting the disability benefits of a veteran on the ground of CUE" as 38 U.S.C. section 5109A does not "provide for another person, even a survivor, to seek correction of a decision on a veteran's claim." Haines v. West, 154 F.3d 1298, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
(c) Errors that constitute clear and unmistakable error. To warrant revision of a Board decision on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error, there must have been an error in the Board's adjudication of the appeal which, had it not been made, would have manifestly changed the outcome when it was made. If it is not absolutely clear that a different result would have ensued, the error complained of cannot be clear and unmistakable.
(1) Changed diagnosis. A new medical diagnosis that "corrects" an earlier diagnosis considered in a Board decision.
(2) Duty to assist. The Secretary's failure to fulfill the duty to assist.

References: § 7111
 § 20
 § 7252
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7261
 § 7104
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 20
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5109
 v. 
 v. 
 § 20
 v. 
 v. 
 v.