Source: http://openjurist.org/126/f3d/1464/epps-v-w-gober
Timestamp: 2013-05-22 19:54:51
Document Index: 115393830

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5107', '§ 552', '§ 1', '§ 5107', '§ 5107', '§ 7292', '§ 7292', '§ 7292', '§ 5107', '§ 7292', '§ 5107', '§ 7292', '§ 5107', '§ 5107', '§ 5107', '§ 5107', '§ 3', '§ 5107', '§ 5107', '§ 5107', '§ 5107', '§ 5107', '§ 552', '§ 1', '§ 7292']

126 F3d 1464 Epps v. W Gober | OpenJurist
126 F. 3d 1464 - Epps v. W Gober	Home126 f3d 1464 epps v. w gober
126 F3d 1464 Epps v. W Gober 126 F.3d 1464
Clemment B. EPPS, Claimant-Appellant,v.Hershel W. GOBER, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs,Respondent-Appellee.
No. 97-7014.
On appeal to that court, Epps argued that the DVA failed to assist him pursuant to § 5107(a) because it failed to inform him of the type of evidence needed to render his heart condition claim "well grounded." Epps also argued that the hearing conducted pursuant to the Circular was "invalid" because, inter alia, the Circular was neither published in the Federal Register nor subject to public comment pursuant to statutory and regulatory procedures. See 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1994)1; 5 C.F.R. § 1.12 (1996)2.
The court concluded that the lack of any competent medical evidence of a nexus between Epps's service-connected skin condition and his heart condition rendered his claim not "well grounded." Epps v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 341, 344 (Ct.Vet.App.1996). Accordingly, the court concluded that the board erred in proceeding to the merits of his claim, but that this error was nonprejudicial under § 5107(a) because the DVA in fact adequately assisted Epps by informing him that his claim was denied because of a lack of medical evidence of causation. Id. The court noted that the "notice and comment" requirements of the statute and regulation were not violated because the Circular did not contain "substantive" rules. Id. at 345-47. The court also noted that the Circular did not appear to operate to Epps's detriment because it provided Epps with an additional opportunity to be heard, and that the hearing officer had exceeded the legal requirements imposed on the DVA by § 5107(a) when he ordered another medical examination and further assisted Epps in developing his claim, even though Epps had not submitted a "well grounded" claim. Id. at 346. However, the court declined to further consider Epps's attack on the Circular in light of its determination that Epps's claim was not "well grounded." Id. at 347. Epps now appeals to this court.
38 U.S.C. § 7292(a) (1994); see also id. § 7292(c), (d) (vesting jurisdiction over review of Court of Veterans Appeals' decisions in this court and setting certain standards for review); Fugere v. Derwinski, 972 F.2d 331, 334 (Fed.Cir.1992). Our jurisdiction does not extend to challenges either to factual determinations or to the law as applied to the facts of a particular case. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
In arguing that we lack jurisdiction, the DVA notes that the Court of Veterans Appeals has determined that Epps's claim is not "well grounded," and that, in any event, he was provided with adequate assistance from the DVA. Therefore, the DVA argues that, even under Epps's proposed construction of § 5107(a), we can only affirm, because the court has determined that Epps was adequately assisted, a factual conclusion not reviewable by this court under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). In effect, the DVA argues that Epps's appeal is moot. See Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 1253, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1989) ("Article III denies federal courts the power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants in the case before them.") (citations and internal quotations omitted).
We do not agree that we lack jurisdiction to interpret the chronological relationship between a "well grounded" claim and the duty to provide assistance set forth in § 5107(a). Our jurisdictional statute authorizes us to review the "validity of any statute or regulation ... or any interpretation thereof ... that was relied on by the Court [of Veterans Appeals] in making its decision." 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). The question raised is one of interpretation of a statute. Even though there has been a determination by the Court of Veterans Appeals which we may not be able to review, and which, no matter how we resolve the legal issue presented, causes Epps to lose his appeal, we are entitled to decide all issues properly raised before us because we are not the court of last resort. See Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton Int'l, Inc., 508 U.S. 83, 97, 113 S.Ct. 1967, 1975, 124 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993). In the event of Supreme Court review, it would be desirable that the Court have our decision on the important legal issue of the construction of § 5107(a) which needs to be resolved. We consider it an alternative ground of affirmance of the Court of Veterans Appeals. See id. at 98, 113 S.Ct. at 1975 ("The Federal Circuit's decision to rely on one of two possible alternative grounds ... did not strip it of power to decide the second question, particularly when its decree was subject to review by this court.") (emphasis in original). Therefore, the appeal is not moot and we do not lack jurisdiction to review the court's construction of § 5107(a).
We now proceed to the merits. The construction of a statute is a legal question that we review de novo. Smith v. Brown, 35 F.3d 1516, 1517 (Fed.Cir.1994).
As previously noted, Epps argues that DVA assistance under § 5107(a) is not conditioned upon the submission of a "well grounded" claim. According to Epps, whether a claim is "well grounded" is relevant only to the question whether benefits will ultimately be allowed after consideration of all the evidence, including that which the DVA is unconditionally obligated to help develop. In support of his argument, Epps points to the legislative history of § 5107 and argues that Congress intended to codify regulations 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102,3 3.103 (1996)4, which, according to Epps, embody the DVA's long-standing practice of providing unconditional assistance to veterans in claim development, and which clarify the meaning and impact of the term "well grounded claim." Epps also notes that the Court of Veterans Appeals' interpretation of § 5107(a) produces an anomalous result, because only those claimants who do not need DVA assistance (i.e., those with "well grounded" claims) would be entitled to DVA assistance.
[A] plausible claim, one which is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. Such a claim need not be conclusive but only possible to satisfy the initial burden of § 5107(a). For a claim to be well grounded, there must be (1) a medical diagnosis of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in[-]service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between an in-service [disease or injury] and the current disability. Where the determinative issue involves medical causation, competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is plausible is required.
Epps, 9 Vet.App. at 343-44 (citations and quotations omitted). We adopt this definition as one that properly expresses the meaning of the statute. See Woodson v. Brown, 87 F.3d 1304, 1305, 1307 (Fed.Cir.1996) (approving of the Court of Veterans Appeals' application of, but not expressly adopting, the above quoted definition of "well grounded" claim for purposes of § 5107(a)).
The second sentence of § 5107(a) requires the DVA to assist "such a claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim." (emphasis added). We interpret the underlined phrase to have its antecedent basis in the sentence preceding it, and thereby attribute significance to the chronology of the sentences. See Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 138, 111 S.Ct. 478, 482, 112 L.Ed.2d 474 (1990) ("To discern Congress' intent we examine the explicit statutory language and the structure and purpose of the statute."). "[S]uch a claimant" refers to the claimant who has first met its burden of submitting a "well grounded" claim. Thus, under § 5107(a), the DVA has a duty to assist only those claimants who have established "well grounded" (i.e., plausible) claims. See Woodson, 87 F.3d at 1305, 1307.
Epps further argues that his hearing held pursuant to the DVA Circular was procedurally and substantively invalid because the DVA did not publish the Circular in the Federal Register pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1) (1994) or follow "notice and comment" procedures pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 1.12 (1996). In response, the DVA argues that the Circular does not impose substantive rules and therefore does not require publication in the Federal Register. The DVA further argues that the Circular is not subject to the DVA's "notice and comment" procedures because it is not "proposed regulatory development," but instead merely provides procedural instructions to DVA personnel.
The Court of Veterans Appeals noted that "it would appear that the Circular did not warrant publication and a notice and comment period because the [Hearing Officer] program does not 'narrowly limit' administrative action or have the 'force of law[,]' " and therefore was not a substantive rule. Epps, 9 Vet.App. at 346 (citations omitted). The court also noted that "the [Hearing Officer] program broadens administrative action by affording claimants an additional opportunity to be heard" with respect to their claims.5 Id. However, the court was clear that "it would be inappropriate for the Court to enter any definitive rulings regarding the alleged infirmities with the [Hearing Officer] program in general, and with the hearing afforded [Epps] in particular" given its conclusion that Epps had not submitted a "well grounded" claim. Id. at 347. Accordingly, the court declined to further consider Epps's "attack" on the Circular. Id.
We may review a Court of Veterans Appeals' decision with respect to the validity of a statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof if the validity of that statute or regulation was relied on by that court in making its decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a) (1994) (quoted supra ). However, it is clear that, while it commented on the Circular, the court did not decide the validity of the Circular or rely on its interpretation in rendering its decision against Epps; its discussion concerning the validity of the Circular and Epps's hearing under it was therefore dictum. We will therefore not review this issue. We have considered all the other arguments made by Epps, but find them to be unpersuasive.
(D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency[.]
The Circular provides for DVA post-decisional hearings. Circular 20-89-11, p 2(a)(1) (Mar. 26, 1990). This is in addition to appeal rights to the Board of Veterans Appeals. Under p 2(c)(4), the paragraph applicable to Epps, when Epps filed his appeal with the board, the hearing officer retained authority to amend his decision after holding the hearing if Epps provided the hearing officer with "new and material evidence." Therefore, the Circular in this case provided Epps with an additional mechanism for procuring a favorable review of his claim. It did not, as Epps contends, impose a substantive requirement on Epps to produce "new and material evidence." Nor did it interfere with Epps's right to de novo review at the Board of Veterans Appeals
Home126 f3d 1464 epps v. w gober