Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2019/03/18/ruel-v-wilkie-no-2017-2562decided-march-15-2019-dic/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:22:05+00:00

Document:
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 15-4075, Chief Judge Robert N. Davis, Judge Coral Wong Pietsch, Senior Judge William A. Moorman.
SCADDEN, Office of General Counsel, United States Depart-ment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Before MOORE, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Teresa A. Ruel, the surviving spouse of a U.S. veteran, appeals from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) decision affirming a Board of Vet-erans’ Appeals (Board) decision denying her an effective date of 1984, rather than 2009, for her Dependency and In-demnity Compensation (DIC) claim. Mrs. Ruel first filed a DIC claim in 1984. The Board found that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) had denied Mrs. Ruel’s 1984 DIC claim in a single sentence of a re-sponse to a separate burial benefits claim that had found no service connection between Mr. Ruel’s service and his death, because service connection is also a requirement for a DIC claim. In affirming the Board’s finding, the Veterans Court found that this sentence was sufficient to put Mrs. Ruel on notice, under the VA’s notice regulation 38 C.F.R. § 3.103, that her DIC claim had been explicitly denied. Be-cause proper notice of an explicit denial of a claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 requires an actual statement or otherwise clear indication of the claim being denied, we reverse.
Richard W. Ruel served in the U.S. Marine Corps from March 1966 to May 1969, including two tours in Vietnam during which he was exposed to Agent Orange. He died on June 23, 1984. As his surviving spouse, Mrs. Ruel then filed claims for certain benefits.
(1) DIC, which is a tax-free monetary benefit paid to eligi-ble survivors of veterans whose death resulted from a ser-vice-related injury or disease, and (2) Death Pension by Surviving Spouse or Child, which is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to a low-income, un-remarried surviving spouse and/or unmarried children of a deceased veteran with wartime service. The VA treats a submission of this form as an application for both DIC and death pension ben-efits. See 38 U.S.C. § 5101(b)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.152(b)(1). On July 19, 1984, the RO sent Mrs. Ruel a letter explaining that her claim for death pension benefits was denied be-cause her income exceeded the maximum income limita-tion. The letter did not mention a DIC claim.
J.A.40.1 The letter directed the reader to “see reverse for procedural and appellate rights.” Id. Mrs. Ruel did not appeal any of the RO’s 1984 determinations.
1 “J.A.” refers to the Joint Appendix filed by the par-ties in this appeal.
change. The RO issued a decision in November 2010 grant-ing Mrs. Ruel’s claim and assigning an effective date of Oc-tober 20, 2009.
2 38 C.F.R. § 3.816(d)(2) defines the effective date for claims pending on or after May 3, 1989 retroactively to the later of the date the claim was initially filed or the death occurred.
to reopen. Accordingly, the Board found that an effective date prior to October 20, 2009 was not warranted.
Mrs. Ruel appealed the Board’s decision to the Veter-ans Court. In a single-judge decision, the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s determination, finding that the Board correctly found the RO’s statement that “[t]he evidence does not show that the veteran’s death was due to a service connected condition,” together with the included notice of procedural and appellant rights, “an express denial of her DIC claim.” Ruel v. Shulkin, No. 15-4075, Memorandum Decision at 5 (Vet. App. June 1, 2017). The Veterans Court characterized the Board’s decision as “an explicit denial of the appellant’s 1984 DIC claim.” Id. at 4 (emphasis added).
The Veterans Court also rejected Appellant’s argument under 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 (the VA’s notice regulation), noting that “the law in 1984 did not require that the RO’s reason for denying the claim be thoroughly explained, only that it be included in the notice.” Id. at 5 (first citing Fournier v. Peake, 23 Vet. App. 480, 486 (2010); then citing Natali v. Principi, 375 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding that the RO was not required to provide detailed statements of reasons or bases prior to 1988 when Congress added the statutory provision mandating that decisions denying ben-efits include a statement of the reasons for the decision)).
Mrs. Ruel moved for reconsideration of the Veterans Court decision by the single judge and by a panel; the first was denied, but the second was granted. A two-judge ma-jority agreed with the single-judge decision, while a dis-senting judge opined that it was “difficult to accept that a single sentence that does not name the claim that it alleg-edly decided and contains only an unadorned factual find-ing is sufficient to meet” the notice requirements of the law in place in 1984. J.A. at 15.
Mrs. Ruel timely appealed to this court.
The claimant will be notified of any decision affect-ing the payment of benefits or granting relief. No-tice will include the reason for the decision and the date it will be effectuated as well as the right to a hearing subject to paragraph (c) of this section. The notification will also advise the claimant of his right to initiate an appeal by filing a Notice of Dis-agreement which will entitle him to a Statement of the case for his assistance in perfecting his appeal. Further, the notice will advise him of the periods in which an appeal must be initiated and perfected.
38 C.F.R. § 3.103(e) (1984). This regulation “mirrors con-stitutional due process by requiring notice that a claim has been denied.” Cogburn v. McDonald, 809 F.3d 1232, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The Veterans Court and Board interpreted § 3.103(e) as satisfied by “explicit denials” that do not mention or in any other way identify the claim being denied. In defend-ing this interpretation, the Government essentially argues that if the VA makes a fact finding with regard to one claim, that fact finding serves as notice to an applicant that all other claims for which that fact finding would be rele-vant are likewise explicitly decided, even without saying so.
3 The decision must also meet the other requirements of § 3.103(e), including the reason for the decision, the date effectuated, and notice of appel-late rights.
Under this legal interpretation, it is clear that the VA’s August 1984 burial benefits decision does not meet the no-tice requirements for an explicit denial of Mrs. Ruel’s pend-ing DIC claim. The sentence “[t]he evidence does not show that the veteran’s death was due to a service connected con-dition” does not, in any way, identify the DIC claim. The sentences before and after the statement both refer to bur-ial benefits, and the letter does not mention any other pending benefits. As the Veterans Court panel’s dissenting opinion articulated, “a single sentence that does not name the claim that it allegedly decided and contains only an un-adorned factual finding” is insufficient to meet the notice requirements for an explicit denial of Mrs. Ruel’s DIC claim under § 3.103.
3 Our holding is limited to explicit denials, since that is what the Veterans Court determined occurred here. Ruel, No. 15-4075, Memorandum Decision at 4 (character-izing the Board’s decision as finding that the second sen-tence in the August 1984 letter was “an explicit denial of the appellant’s 1984 DIC claim,” and that therefore, the “Board did not err in failing to apply the implicit denial doctrine.” (emphasis added)).
claim is July 6, 1984, and we direct the VA to dispense her benefits accordingly.

References: § 3
 § 3
 § 5101
 § 3
 § 3
 v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3