Opinion ID: 209561
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Entitlement to an Earlier Effective Date

Text: On appeal, Mr. Proceviat argues that he is entitled to an earlier effective date based on the submission of a July 1987 medical report attached to his original pension application. According to Mr. Proceviat, the attached medical report “constitute[d] an informal claim for SMP A&A [aid and attendance].” See Attachment to ClaimantAppellant’s Brief at 3. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 governs informal claims and provides that “[a]ny communication or action, indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits . . . from a claimant . . . may be considered an informal claim.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) (2008). Furthermore, the “informal claim must identify the benefit sought. “ Id. Determining whether an informal claim for aid and attendance has been filed requires an application of the law, that is, applying the definition of an informal claim under § 3.155(a) to the facts of a particular case. Contrary to Mr. Proceviat’s allegation that the VA failed to acknowledge, consider, or even discuss the July 1987 medical report, the Board found that “a July 1987 statement from the veteran’s private physician … [provided] no indication that the veteran was unable to dress, keep himself clean and presentable, feed himself, or attend to the wants of nature due to his RA.” In the Appeal of Richard A. Proceviat, Bd. Vet. App. Docket No. 95-18 908 at 20 (Order, Aug. 24, 2005). Based on Mr. Proceviat’s “earlier [1987] pension application, as well as other evidence,” the Veterans Court stated that it was “unable to conclude that the appellant intended to make such a claim [for aid and attendance] prior to the current effective 2008-7113 4 date.” Proceviat v. Mansfield, Ct. Vet. App. Docket No. 05-3073 at 3 (Memorandum Decision, Oct. 22, 2007). Because this court “may not review any challenge to a . . . regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case”, this court lacks jurisdiction to decide whether the attached medical report constitutes an informal claim. Buchanan, 451 F.3d at 1334. Mr. Proceviat further argues that the VA should have construed his July 1987 medical report as an informal claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.157(b)(2). § 3.157(b) provides that (b) … Once a formal claim for pension or compensation has been allowed . . . receipt of one of the following will be accepted as an informal claim for increased benefits ... (2) Evidence from a private physician or layman. The date of receipt of such evidence will be accepted when the evidence furnished . . . shows the reasonable probability of entitlement to benefits. § 3.157(b) (2008) (emphasis added). Although Mr. Proceviat failed to make this argument in lower proceedings, the Board’s and Veterans Court’s analysis of the 1987 private medical report suggests that even if the medical report was treated as an informal claim, there was no “reasonable probability of entitlement to benefits.” As mentioned above, both the Board and Veterans Court found no indication that Mr. Proceviat intended to apply for enhanced benefits from the 1987 medical report. Thus, Mr. Proceviat’s alternative reliance on § 3.157(b)(2) is unavailing. For these reasons, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.