Court Opinion

ID: 9502589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 18:53:06.360074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:15.020712
License: Public Domain

KASOLD, Judge,
concurring in part:
Although subtly different than expressed in the majority opinion, I believe the threshold question in this instance is whether Mr. Mangham was receiving VA treatment or care as defined by 38 U.S.C. § 1151 at the time he observed the shooting that he claims is the cause of his reported mental distress. I agree with the majority that he was not. Accordingly, Mr. Mangham cannot, and has not, established the relevance of the Root Cause Analysis, and his argument that he should be permitted to review the analysis under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 fails.
I also agree that because Mr. Mangham was not receiving section 1151 care at the time of the incident underlying his claim, we need not reach the issue of whether the shooting constituted “an event not reasonably foreseeable.” For this same reason, however, we need not reach the issue of causation, and I do not concur in the nonessential discussion thereof.