Court Opinion

ID: 9954964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 15:01:17.179995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:07.918539
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1504   Document: 54     Page: 1   Filed: 03/27/2024

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                ORVILLE K. THOMAS,
                  Claimant-Appellant

                            v.

       DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
              VETERANS AFFAIRS,
               Respondent-Appellee
              ______________________

                       2022-1504
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 20-4192, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,
 Jr.
                 ______________________

                Decided: March 27, 2024
                ______________________

    CHRIS ATTIG, Attig Curran Steel PLLC, Little Rock,
 AR, argued for claimant-appellant. Also represented by
 HALEY SMITH.

     IGOR HELMAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Di-
 vision, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
 DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY; JULIE HONAN, Y. KEN LEE, DEREK SCADDEN,
 Office of General Counsel, United States Department of
 Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 22-1504    Document: 54     Page: 2    Filed: 03/27/2024

 2                                    THOMAS v. MCDONOUGH

                  ______________________

 Before LOURIE, REYNA, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
 REYNA, Circuit Judge.
      Mr. Orville Thomas appeals a decision of the U.S.
 Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Veterans Court
 affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ denial of an ear-
 lier effective date for Mr. Thomas’ claim of service connec-
 tion for post-traumatic stress disorder. Because the
 Veterans Court applied an improper legal standard when
 reviewing the Board’s decision, we vacate and remand.
                         BACKGROUND
     Mr. Thomas served in the U.S. Navy from 1957 to 1964.
 J.A. 1–2. In January 1961, he was an airman on a plane
 that crashed on Midway Island, killing nine people. J.A. 2.
 Of the six passengers who were seated in the plane’s mid-
 section, Mr. Thomas was the sole survivor. J.A. 2. Three
 years later in 1964, Mr. Thomas was honorably discharged
 as unsuitable for service after being diagnosed with an
 emotionally unstable personality. J.A. 211, 275.
     In January 1971, he submitted a claim to the U.S. De-
 partment of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) for service connection
 for his “depressive mania.” J.A. 277. He expressed to the
 VA that, after surviving the plane crash, he was experienc-
 ing ongoing emotional distress and had attempted suicide.
 J.A. 277. The VA regional office obtained Mr. Thomas’
 medical records, which showed that he had been treated for
 emotional problems and was subsequently discharged.
 J.A. 204–75. Based on solely the medical records, the VA
 denied service connection and concluded that an emotion-
 ally unstable personality was not a disability under the
 law. J.A. 203. In reaching this decision, the VA did not
 consider Mr. Thomas’ service department records. Mr.
 Thomas did not appeal this decision.
Case: 22-1504     Document: 54     Page: 3    Filed: 03/27/2024

 THOMAS v. MCDONOUGH                                         3

     On June 16, 2014, Mr. Thomas filed a request to reopen
 his 1971 claim. J.A. 163–202, 116–50. This time, he sub-
 mitted service department records that were not before the
 VA in 1971. J.A. 169–202, 116–50. These service depart-
 ment records include, inter alia, information about the
 1961 plane crash, the changes in Mr. Thomas’ personality
 before and after the crash, and evaluations of Mr. Thomas’
 performance in service. E.g., J.A. 116–50, 169–91.
     In November 2014, the VA granted Mr. Thomas service
 connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”),
 with an effective date of June 16, 2014. J.A. 106–12. The
 VA based its decision on a review of the evidence, which
 included (1) the service department records Mr. Thomas
 submitted in June 2014 and (2) the VA’s PTSD examina-
 tion of Mr. Thomas, which diagnosed him with the disor-
 der. J.A. 113–14.
     Mr. Thomas filed a timely Notice of Disagreement,
 seeking an earlier effective date. J.A. 104–05. The VA is-
 sued a Statement of the Case which, while increasing the
 disability rating for his PTSD, continued to deny an effec-
 tive date earlier than June 2014. J.A. 71–99. The VA
 acknowledged that Mr. Thomas had submitted his service
 department records, and that he had argued that under 38
 C.F.R. § 3.156(c), those records showed entitlement to an
 earlier effective date. 1 J.A. 4, 99.

     1    Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1), if the “VA receives or
 associates with the claims file relevant official service de-
 partment records that existed and had not been associated
 with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA
 will reconsider the claim.” Additionally, “[a]n award made
 based all or in part” on these service department records
 “is effective on the date entitlement arose or the date VA
 received the previously decided claim, whichever is later.”
Case: 22-1504     Document: 54      Page: 4    Filed: 03/27/2024

 4                                      THOMAS v. MCDONOUGH

     The VA found that the service department records
 would not have changed the 1971 denial of service connec-
 tion because they did not counter the determination that
 Mr. Thomas’ in-service psychiatric problems were due to
 an “emotionally unstable personality,” which was not con-
 sidered a disability for VA compensation purposes. J.A. 99.
 The VA also concluded that the service department records
 “were not a factor in the grant of benefits at this time.” J.A.
 99.
      Mr. Thomas appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
 peals (“Board”). J.A. 68–69. The Board agreed with the
 VA’s denial of an earlier effective date for the grant of ser-
 vice connection for PTSD. J.A. 54–67. The Board found no
 evidence of an unadjudicated claim for service connection
 for PTSD between the March 1971 rating decision and
 June 2014 that might justify an earlier effective date.
 J.A. 58–59. The Board decision did not address Section
 3.156(c) or Mr. Thomas’ newly added service department
 records. J.A. 54–67. Mr. Thomas appealed the Board’s de-
 cision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
 (“Veterans Court”).
     Before the Veterans Court, Mr. Thomas argued that
 the Board violated its statutory duty under 38 U.S.C.
 § 7104(d)(1) to provide a written statement of its findings,
 and its reasons and bases for those findings, concerning “all
 material issues of fact and law presented on the record.”
 J.A. 49 (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1)). According to Mr.
 Thomas, this statutory duty required the Board to consider

 38 U.S.C. § 3.156(c)(3). “In other words, § 3.156(c) serves
 to place a veteran in the position he would have been had
 the VA considered the relevant service department record
 before the disposition of his earlier claim.” Blubaugh v.
 McDonald, 773 F.3d 1310, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Case: 22-1504    Document: 54     Page: 5    Filed: 03/27/2024

 THOMAS v. MCDONOUGH                                       5

 his arguments concerning Section 3.156(c), which applied
 to the facts of his case. Mr. Thomas also argued this stat-
 utory duty required the Board to consider his service de-
 partment records, which had existed at the time of the VA’s
 original denial in 1971 but had not yet been associated with
 his claims file. Mr. Thomas noted that these service de-
 partment records served as a partial basis for his eventual
 grant of PTSD in November 2014. Finally, Mr. Thomas ar-
 gued that the Board’s errors prejudiced him. According to
 Mr. Thomas, had the Board properly considered that his
 service department records that were not associated with
 his claims file until 2014, the Board likely would not have
 concluded that “June 16, 2014, is the earliest possible ef-
 fective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD.”
 J.A. 52 (quoting J.A. 59).
      The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision. The
 Veterans Court determined that the Board did not err in
 failing to discuss Section 3.156(c)(1) because this regula-
 tion only applies to “relevant” service records. The Veter-
 ans Court noted that Mr. Thomas “offer[ed] no argument
 that his service records were in any way relevant” to the
 VA’s denial of his 1971 claim. For this reason, the VA con-
 cluded that Mr. Thomas had not shown that the Board
 committed prejudicial error in failing to discuss Section
 3.156(c)(1).
     The Veterans Court also determined that the Board did
 not err in failing to discuss Mr. Thomas’ service depart-
 ment records. The Veterans Court explained that “Mr.
 Thomas has neither shown nor argued that the service de-
 partment records . . . were ‘favorable’ evidence and that
 the Board was thus required to discuss them.” J.A. 5.
    Mr. Thomas appeals. We have jurisdiction under 38
 U.S.C. § 7292(c).
Case: 22-1504    Document: 54      Page: 6    Filed: 03/27/2024

 6                                     THOMAS v. MCDONOUGH

                    STANDARD OF REVIEW
     Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
 Court is limited by statute. Gazelle v. Shulkin, 868 F.3d
 1006, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2017). This court may review legal
 questions, including the validity of any statute or regula-
 tion or any interpretation thereof. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c).
 This court may not, however, review factual determina-
 tions or application of law to fact, except to the extent an
 appeal presents a constitutional issue. Id. § 7292(d)(2).
                         DISCUSSION
      Mr. Thomas argues that the Veterans Court errone-
 ously applied a more stringent legal standard than what is
 required under 38 U.S.C. § 7104. Section 7104(d) governs
 the Board’s statutory duty to consider “applicable” regula-
 tions and provide a written statement on “all material is-
 sues of fact and law.” Specifically, Mr. Thomas argues that
 the Veterans Court improperly read into this provision a
 new and limiting requirement—that the Board need only
 address “favorable” or “relevant” evidence in its written de-
 cision. We agree with Mr. Thomas and thus vacate the Vet-
 erans Court’s decision and remand.
     When deciding a veteran’s appeal, the Board’s decision
 “shall include” a “written statement of the Board’s findings
 and conclusions, and the reasons or bases for those findings
 and conclusions, on all material issues of fact and law pre-
 sented on the record.” 38 U.S.C § 7104(d) (emphasis
 added). At the Veterans Court, this provision means that
 the Board must address in its written statement all regu-
 lations that are “made potentially applicable through the
 assertions and issues raised in the record.” Schafrath v.
 Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 593 (1991). We see no reason
 to depart from the Veterans Court’s “potentially applica-
 ble” standard, which supports 38 U.S.C § 7104(d)’s goal of
 providing veterans with a fulsome and clear decision of
Case: 22-1504    Document: 54     Page: 7    Filed: 03/27/2024

 THOMAS v. MCDONOUGH                                       7

 their claims. 2 In doing so, we are not eliminating or even
 modifying the Veterans Court’s obligation to place the bur-
 den of proof for showing prejudicial error on appeal on the
 appellant, as the Veterans Court here correctly did. See
 J.A. 4–5; 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(2).
     Here, Mr. Thomas undisputedly raised Section 3.156(c)
 and his service department records before the Board. The
 Board did not address these two points in its decision. The
 Veterans Court recognized the Board’s duty under
 38 U.S.C. § 7104 to provide a written determination with
 adequate reasons or bases for its determination. The Vet-
 erans Court also recognized that this duty requires the
 Board to “address all regulations made potentially applica-
 ble by assertions and issues raised in the record.” J.A. 4.
 The Veterans Court, however, excused the Board’s silence
 because Mr. Thomas did not allegedly argue the “rele-
 vance” of Section 3.156(c) or his service department records
 in his briefing on appeal. J.A. 4. The Veterans Court also
 faulted Mr. Thomas for failing to show how his service de-
 partment records were “favorable” evidence. J.A. 5. These

    2    Section 7104(d)(1) was “designed to promote the de-
 velopment of a record of the agency proceedings that would
 permit a reviewing court to understand and evaluate the
 proceedings as part of its review.” S. Rep. No. 100–418, at
 37–38 (1988). The Board’s required statement of reasons
 or bases would assist veterans to “understand the Board’s
 response to the various arguments advanced by the [vet-
 eran],” and use this understanding “to make an informed
 decision on whether or not to request court review.” Id. at
 38. “[B]are conclusory statement[s]” in Board decisions
 would cut against the purpose of Section 7104(d)(1). Jen-
 nings v. Mansfield, 509 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
 (quoting Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990)).
Case: 22-1504    Document: 54     Page: 8    Filed: 03/27/2024

 8                                    THOMAS v. MCDONOUGH

 statements indicate that the Veterans Court erroneously
 applied a standard considerably more stringent than re-
 quired under 38 U.S.C. § 7104. As explained above, Sec-
 tion 7104 requires the Board to consider all “potentially
 applicable” regulations raised in the record, not merely
 those that the veteran has shown to be relevant or favora-
 ble in his briefing before the Board.
     The government argues that we lack jurisdiction over
 this appeal because the Veterans Court’s decision was
 merely a “[s]traightforward [a]pplication [o]f Kisor II” to
 the facts of Mr. Thomas’ appeal. Appellee Br. 14. The gov-
 ernment’s argument is unavailing. In Kisor II, this court
 interpreted the meaning of a “relevant” service department
 record under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). Kisor v. McDonough, 995
 F.3d 1316, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2021). As discussed supra, Sec-
 tion 3.156(c) provides that the VA may reconsider a previ-
 ously decided claim and retroactively set an earlier
 effective date when “relevant” service department records
 are associated with the claims file. Here, the Board never
 made a finding of fact as to the relevancy of Mr. Thomas’
 service department records to his denied 1971 claim, as re-
 quired under Section 3.156(c) and Kisor II. Because the
 Board has not made this factual determination in the first
 instance, the Veterans Court is statutorily prohibited from
 doing so. 38 U.S.C. § 7261(c); Deloach v. Shinseki, 704 F.3d
 1370, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Thus, contrary to the govern-
 ment’s position, the Veterans Court’s decision cannot be
 characterized as an application of Kisor II to Mr. Thomas’
 case.
     On remand, the Veterans Court is instructed to re-
 mand the case to the Board to provide an adequate written
 statement of its reasons and bases concerning Mr. Thomas’
 claim for an earlier effective date for his PTSD. The Board
 must consider Mr. Thomas’ arguments concerning Section
 3.156(c) and his service department records under the ap-
 propriate legal standard contained in 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d).
Case: 22-1504     Document: 54    Page: 9   Filed: 03/27/2024

 THOMAS v. MCDONOUGH                                      9

                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered the government’s remaining argu-
 ments and find them unpersuasive. We vacate the decision
 of the Veterans Court and remand for further action con-
 sistent with this decision.
                VACATED AND REMANDED
                          COSTS
 Costs to Mr. Thomas.