Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2009/02/11/non-attorney-comments-on-the-fedcirs-decision-in-moore-v-shinseki-no-2007-7306/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:24:17+00:00

Document:
FedCir; Moore v. Shinseki, No. 2007-7306.
FedCir’s decision in Moore v. Shinseki, No. 2007-7306.
VA’s duty to obtain all records, including those before the date of the claim and Two the Federal Circuit appears to be sending a message to the VA when they described VA’s duty to assist as “shamefull”. full quote: “It is shameful that the VA yet again failed in its duty to assist the veteran and, at best, poor judgment by the Department of Justice in defending the VA’s actions.” This makes the third FedCir. decision that I am aware of, building on Comer and Barrett [see earlier posts], that seems to recognizes the plight being experienced by some vets when dealing with the VA.
of note: “We fail to understand how the government, without examining the Tripler records, can have any idea as to whether they would, or would not, support Moore’s claim for an increased disability rating. See McGee v. Peake”.
In 1992, when Moore originally submitted his claim for benefits, the VA’s duty to assist veterans was codified in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a), which provided that “[t]he Secretary shall assist . . . a claimant in developing the facts pertinent to his or her claim.” When Congress enacted section 5107(a), it “codified the VA’s obligation to assist claimants, which had existed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) since 1972.” Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334, 1337-38 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc). The VA’s duty to assist claimants is now codified at 38 U.S.C. § 5103A, which was added by the Veterans Claim Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096, 2097. However, 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a), the regulation setting forth the duty to assist, remains unchanged. See Cook, 318 F.3d at 1338 n.4.
The Veterans Court has addressed the meaning of pertinent and that it takes on a special meaning within the VA system. see “Within the non-adversarial process of VA claims adjudication, the word ‘pertinent’ takes on an even stronger meaning; the Secretary’s duty applies to all relevant facts, not just those for or against the claim.” Murphy, slip op. at 5. Also see § 3007(a) (Within the non-adversarial process of VA claims adjudication, the word “pertinent” takes on an even stronger meaning; the Secretary’s duty applies to all relevant facts, not just those for or against the claim. Having been codified by Public Law 100- 687, this obligation is more than a matter of policy or executive discretion; it is mandated by statute.), see also Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Over a period of many years, a veteran’s disability claim may require reratings in accordance with changes in laws, medical knowledge and his or her physical or mental condition. It is thus essential, both in the examination and in the evaluation of disability, that each disability be viewed in relation to its history.
We are mindful, however, that many veterans must navigate the “labyrinthine corridors of the veterans’ adjudicatory system” without the assistance of counsel. See on other grounds, Comer v. Peake, No. 2008-7013, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 668, at *16 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 16, 2009). Because many veterans lack the knowledge and resources necessary to locate relevant records, Congress has appropriately placed the burden on the VA to ensure that all relevant service medical records are obtained and fully evaluated. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(c)(1); Hayre v. West, 188 F.3d 1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1999), overruled Cook, 318 F.3d at 1338-40 (The VA must “make all possible efforts to obtain and assess records relevant to an evaluation of [a veteran’s] disability” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original)). It is shameful that the VA yet again failed in its duty to assist the veteran and, at best, poor judgment by the Department of Justice in defending the VA’s actions.
Daniel P. Graham, Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for claimant-appellant.
Claudia Burke, Senior Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. With her on the brief were Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was David J. Barrans, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.
Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 04-2386, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.
Before MAYER and DYK, Circuit Judges, and HUFF,* District Judge.
∗ Honorable Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
Appeals decision denying his request for a higher disability rating. See Moore v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 211 (2007) (“2007 Veterans Court Decision”). Because we conclude that the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) erred in failing to obtain Moore’s service medical records before making a determination as to the severity of his psychiatric disability, we reverse and remand.
Moore then appealed to the board. In August 2004, the board increased his disability rating to 30 percent for the period from January 27, 1997, to August 7, 2002, and to 50 percent for the period after August 8, 2002. The board held, however, that Moore was not entitled to a disability rating greater than 10 percent for the period from September 16, 1992, to January 26, 1997, concluding that he suffered from only “mild social and industrial impairment” during that period.
On appeal to the Veterans Court, Moore challenged the 10 percent disability rating for the period from September 16, 1992, to January 26, 1997, the 30 percent rating for the period from January 27, 1997, to August 7, 2002, and the 50 percent rating for the period beginning on August 8, 2002. He argued that the VA had an affirmative obligation, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5103A, to obtain the medical records from his hospitalization at Tripler prior to making any rating determinations. In Moore’s view, such records would have given the VA “a more complete picture” of the extent of his psychiatric disability. 2007 Veterans Court Decision, 21 Vet. App. at 214.
was discharged from Tripler and that he had failed to establish how the Tripler hospitalization records would be “meaningfully different” from the records the VA had already obtained. Id. at 216. Although the court acknowledged that it did not know “the precise content” of the Tripler hospitalization records, it concluded that failure to obtain them did not constitute reversible error since the record contained “substantial direct evidence” of the extent of Moore’s psychiatric disability in the period after September 16, 1992. Id. at 217.
Judge Kasold dissented, asserting that the Tripler medical records were “relevant on their face” and should have been obtained by the VA prior to making any rating determination. 2007 Veterans Court Decision, 21 Vet. App. at 221 (Kasold, J., dissenting). He noted that the VA was required, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.1, to evaluate a disability “in relation to its history” and that the VA could not have properly evaluated Moore’s claim for disability compensation because “a significant part of [his] medical history relevant to his psychiatric disability is simply missing.” 2007 Veterans Court Decision, 21 Vet. App. at 222 (Kasold, J., dissenting).
Moore then timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292.
1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “In cases where the material facts are not in dispute and the adoption of a particular legal standard would dictate the outcome of a veteran’s claim, we treat the application of law to undisputed fact as a question of law.” Conley v. Peake, 543 F.3d 1301, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see Groves v. Peake, 524 F.3d 1306, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Moore argues that the VA had an affirmative obligation to obtain and evaluate the records of his hospitalization at Tripler prior to assigning him a disability rating. He contends that the Veterans Court misinterpreted 38 U.S.C. § 5103A when it held that service medical records are not relevant if they pre-date the period for which a veteran seeks disability compensation. We agree.
1 In 1992, when Moore originally submitted his claim for benefits, the VA’s duty to assist veterans was codified in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a), which provided that “[t]he Secretary shall assist . . . a claimant in developing the facts pertinent to his or her claim.” When Congress enacted section 5107(a), it “codified the VA’s obligation to assist claimants, which had existed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) since 1972.” Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334, 1337-38 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc). The VA’s duty to assist claimants is now codified at 38 U.S.C. § 5103A, which was added by the Veterans Claim Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096, 2097. However, 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a), the regulation setting forth the duty to assist, remains unchanged. See Cook, 318 F.3d at 1338 n.4.
records, other relevant records pertaining to the claimant’s active military, naval, or air service that are held or maintained by a governmental entity.
[T]he Court is not persuaded that the [service medical records] that [Moore] alleges should have been obtained would be relevant to any disputed issue, even if they were obtained. In other words, even if the [service medical records] were obtained and indicated that [Moore] displayed a symptom in service that was not observed in any of the postservice medical examinations, such records would not help his claim. He is simply not entitled to disability compensation for symptoms he experienced in service where those symptoms did not persist into the period for which he has been awarded compensation. The issue on appeal is what level of disability did [Moore] experience after September 16, 1992? To answer that question, the Board properly obtained and relied upon medical evidence from the period after September 16, 1992.
2007 Veterans Court Decision, 21 Vet. App. at 215 (citation omitted); see also Holliday v. Nicholson, No. 05-2899, 2007 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 1225 (Vet. App. July 31, 2007) (citing the Veteran’s Court decision in the present case for the proposition that ‘‘when only disability rating is at issue, medical records preceding [the] time period for which compensation has been awarded are not relevant”).
“Different examiners, at different times, will not describe the same disability in the same language” and “a change for the better or worse” in a veteran’s condition “may not be accurately . . . described” in a single report. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.2. Accordingly, “[i]t is the responsibility of the rating specialist to interpret reports of examination in the light of the whole recorded history, reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present.” Id.; see also Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 594 (1991) (evaluating a current disability in light of its complete recorded history “operate[s] to protect claimants against adverse decisions based on a single, incomplete or inaccurate report”).
Evaluation of a disability in light of its history is particularly important in the context of psychiatric disorders. Because “psychiatric disorders abate and recur,” the VA is obligated to evaluate them “not by reference to isolated periods of activity or remission, but by assessing the effects of the disease or injury over the history of the condition.” Davis v. Principi, 276 F.3d 1341, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Thus, VA regulations specifically provide that a rating for a psychiatric disorder must be “based on all the evidence of record that bears on occupational and social impairment rather than solely on the examiner’s assessment of the level of disability at the moment of the examination.” 38 C.F.R. § 4.126(a).
of VA regulations is that a veteran’s disability must be evaluated in light of its whole recorded history. Moore seeks disability compensation for “the very same disability” that led to his hospitalization in the psychiatric ward at Tripler and his “[e]xpeditious administrative separation” from the military. The Tripler hospitalization occurred less than two years before the period for which he seeks disability compensation, and the records of his lengthy in-patient stay presumably contain both detailed information regarding Moore’s behavior and assessments from physicians regarding the severity of his underlying psychiatric disorder. See 2007 Veterans Court Decision, 21 Vet. App. at 221 (Kasold, J., dissenting) (noting that the records of Moore’s Tripler hospitalization “likely are far more descriptive of his disability than other, non-hospitalization records”). Without obtaining and evaluating the Tripler records, the VA could not make a fully informed decision regarding the degree of Moore’s psychiatric impairment. Cf. Schafrath, 1 Vet. App. at 594 (“Whether or not a disability has improved cannot be determined without reference to prior records detailing the history of the condition.”).
2 Although the record contains a “Discharge Note” showing that Moore was discharged from Tripler on January 3, 1991, it is entirely possible that Moore was given a copy of this document when he left the hospital and that it was he, rather than the VA, who put a copy of it in the record.
not have obtained a higher disability rating even if the VA had obtained and evaluated the Tripler records. We find neither argument persuasive.
When evaluating Moore’s psychiatric disability, the VA considered five pages of medical records produced shortly after he was discharged from Tripler. The fact that the VA considered some of the relevant records, however, does not excuse the fact that it failed to consider all of them. As discussed above, the VA is statutorily required to obtain all of the veteran’s relevant service medical records, not simply those which it can most conveniently locate. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(c). Indeed, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2), the VA is specifically required to “make as many requests as are necessary to obtain” records that are in the possession of the federal government, such as a veteran’s service medical records.
on other grounds, Comer v. Peake, No. 2008-7013, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 668, at *16 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 16, 2009). Because many veterans lack the knowledge and resources necessary to locate relevant records, Congress has appropriately placed the burden on the VA to ensure that all relevant service medical records are obtained and fully evaluated. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(c)(1); Hayre v. West, 188 F.3d 1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1999), overruled Cook, 318 F.3d at 1338-40 (The VA must “make all possible efforts to obtain and assess records relevant to an evaluation of [a veteran’s] disability” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original)). It is shameful that the VA yet again failed in its duty to assist the veteran and, at best, poor judgment by the Department of Justice in defending the VA’s actions.
We likewise reject the government’s assertion that Moore would not have obtained a higher disability rating even if the Tripler records had been obtained and evaluated. We fail to understand how the government, without examining the Tripler records, can have any idea as to whether they would, or would not, support Moore’s claim for an increased disability rating. See McGee v. Peake, 511 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Section 5103A “simply does not excuse the VA’s obligation to fully develop the facts of [a] claim based on speculation as to the dispositive nature of relevant records.”).
hospitalized after an apparent suicide attempt and was thereafter deemed unfit for retention in the military, the records of his hospitalization may well contain evidence that he suffers from a serious, and perhaps chronic, psychiatric disorder. Such records could potentially call into question the VA’s conclusion that Moore suffered from only “mild social and industrial impairment” and was therefore entitled to no more than a 10 percent disability rating in the period after September 1992. Thus, contrary to the government’s assertions, the Tripler records could well contain evidence sufficient to establish Moore’s entitlement to increased disability benefits.
Accordingly, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5107
 § 3
 v. 
 § 5103
 § 3
 § 3007
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5103
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5103
 § 4
 § 7292
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5103
 § 5107
 § 3
 v. 
 § 5103
 § 3
 v. 
 § 4
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4
 § 5103
 § 3
 v. 
 § 5103
 v. 
 v.