FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Online materials, documents

Pages:   || 2 | 3 |


-- [ Page 1 ] --


No. 98-1849





On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals

(Decided June 29, 2004 )

Kenneth M. Carpenter, of Topeka, Kansas, was on the pleadings for the appellant.

Leigh A. Bradley, General Counsel; Ron Garvin, Assistant General Counsel; Joan E.

Moriarty, Deputy Assistant General Counsel; and Patricia Trujillo, all of Washington, D.C., were on the pleadings for the appellee.

Before IVERS, STEINBERG, and GREENE, Judges.

GREENE, Judge, filed the opinion of the Court. STEINBERG, Judge, filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

GREENE, Judge: The veteran, Edward R. Andrews, Jr., appealed through counsel a September 8, 1998, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision that found no clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in a July 1983 VA regional office (RO) decision that granted him service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at a disability rating of 10%, or in a January 1985 RO decision that increased the rating for his service-connected PTSD from 10% to 30%.

Record (R.) at 3. On January 24, 2000, the Court, by single-judge order, dismissed Mr. Andrews' appeal on the basis that he had failed to allege any errors in the Board's decision and therefore had abandoned the only issues addressed by the Board. Andrews v. West, 17 Vet.App. 337 (2000) (table).

Thereafter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) vacated this Court's January 2000 order and directed the Court to "decide the proper standard(s) for [our] review of the Board's determination in this case respecting CUE and then to decide whether under the applicable standard of review the denial of the CUE claim was reversible error." Andrews v. Principi, 25 Fed.Appx. 997, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

On February 27, 2003, the Court, in a single-judge memorandum decision, affirmed the September 8, 1998, Board decision. Andrews v. Principi, No. 98-1849, 2003 WL 1791207 (Vet.

App. Feb. 27, 2003). On March 14, 2003, the appellant, through counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for a panel decision. On July 31, 2003, the Court, in a singlejudge order, directed the Secretary to respond to the appellant's motion; his response was received on September 4, 2003. On March 23, 2004, the single judge denied reconsideration, but the panel granted the motion for a panel decision. The February 27, 2003, single-judge memorandum decision is withdrawn, and this opinion is substituted in its place. Because the Court finds no merit in the appellant's arguments, the Board decision will be affirmed.

I. FACTS Mr. Andrews served on active duty in the U.S. Army from October 1966 to March 1969, including service in Vietnam. R. at 15. A 1974 private hospital discharge summary listed diagnoses of a suicide attempt, depressive reaction, and schizoid personality. R. at 58. A November 1976 VA medical record listed a diagnosis of depression, and stated that the veteran "[h]as spent most of [the] time depressed to some extent for [the] last 6-7 y[ea]rs." R. at 64. Other VA medical records from November 1976 also indicated treatment for depression. R. at 66-71.

A January 1981 VA medical record noted that Mr. Andrews had been admitted to a VA hospital that month, and contained diagnoses of transitory atypical psychosis, PTSD, alcohol abuse in remission, and a passive aggressive personality disorder. R. at 83. After participation in a "Vietnam Stress Group", he was discharged with a prognosis of "[f]air to good." R. at 84. He submitted a statement detailing his experiences in Vietnam (R. at 86-87) and was scheduled for a VA medical examination, for which he failed to report (R. at 89, 91). As a result, in May 1981, an RO denied his claim, which appears to have been inferred from his prior statement (R. at 86-87).

R. at 93.

In March 1983, Mr. Andrews sought to reopen his claim. R. at 96. The RO reopened his claim and in July 1983 awarded him service connection for PTSD, at a 10% rating. R. at 181. It appears that that decision was not appealed. See R. at 1-348. In September 1984, he asked for an increased rating for his service-connected PTSD. R. at 183. A December 1984 VA examination report recorded a diagnosis of PTSD, "severe and chronic." R. at 203-03. A January 1985 RO decision increased Mr. Andrews' PTSD rating from 10% to 30%. R. at 205-06. That decision apparently was also not appealed. See R. at 1-348.

In March 1995, Mr. Andrews sought a permanent total disability rating and argued that there was CUE in both the July 1983 and January 1985 RO decisions. R. at 297-98. A June 1995 RO decision awarded him a permanent and total rating for PTSD but found no CUE in either RO decision, after stating that Mr. Andrews' "assert[ion is] no more than a disagreement over matters of judgment and on this basis doesn't meet the regulatory definition of" CUE. R. at 307. In the September 1998 Board decision here on appeal, the Board concluded that, on the basis of the law and evidence in existence at the time, both the July 1983 and January 1985 RO decisions were correct, and that there was therefore no CUE in either decision. R. at 11-12. The Board further


The arguments by the veteran and his representative for CUE in the 1983 and 1985 [RO] decisions are no more than a simple disagreement with how the VA weighed and evaluated the facts, and as such, this does not rise to the level of CUE. The Court has stated that it must always be remembered that CUE is a very specific and rare kind of "error." It is the kind of error, of fact or law, that when called to the attention of later reviewers compels the conclusion, to which reasonable minds could not differ, that the result would have been manifestly different but for the error. Fugo v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 40, 43 (1993). The veteran has not pointed to such error in the subject [RO] decisions, and the Board is unable to discern such error.

R. at 12. Mr. Andrews then appealed to this Court.

In January 2000, this Court, in a single-judge order, dismissed the appeal from the Board's

September 1998 decision; the Court stated:

This Court has consistently held that any claims or issues not pursued on appeal are considered abandoned. See Johnston v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 80, 86 (1997); Phillips v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 25, 27 (1997); Watai v. Brown, 9 Vet.App.

441, 443 (1996); Bucklinger v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 435 (1993). Here, the appellant has failed to allege any errors in the Board's decision and thus abandons the only issues addressed by the Board. On the other hand, Mr. Andrews' counsel, citing Luallen v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 92 (1995)[,] as legal authority, contends that questions of CUE are questions of law and thus subject to this Court's de novo review.... But the Court cannot discern in Luallen any valid basis for that position. Moreover, despite counsel's years of seasoned practice before this Court, he has not acknowledged case law that is contrary to this position or referred to controlling precedent.

Andrews v. West, supra. In December 2001, the Federal Circuit vacated this Court's January 2000 order and remanded the case "for a disposition on the merits in accordance with this opinion, including the Veterans Court's standard of review for the disposition by the Board of Andrews' CUE

claim." Andrews v. Principi, 25 Fed.Appx. at 998-999. The Federal Circuit stated:

While Andrews may not explicitly state "the Board erred," the fact that he is challenging the Board's decision is clear, as the Board affirmed the [RO's] decision denying the CUE claim. Andrews stated in his brief to the Veterans Court that "contrary to both the [RO] and BVA's assertion, such a basis of CUE [,i.e, one alleging that the RO failed to consider all relevant facts of record in making its determination as to a disability rating,] is valid and does not constitute a 'dispute as to how the evidence was weighed.'" Appellant's Brief to Veterans Court at 11. This language clearly demonstrates that Andrews is indeed challenging the determination of the Board that all his [CUE] claim did was allege a defect in how the evidence was weighed. Clearly, Andrews was asserting that the Board erred in not discerning [CUE]. Therefore, it was error for the Veterans Court to dismiss the case on the ground that Andrews had failed to allege error in the Board's decision.

Additionally, in contending that the Board's decision was erroneous, Andrews argued that the Veteran's Court had to review this decision de novo, asserting that a determination respecting [CUE] is a question of law. We agree that Andrews clearly raised a question of law, namely: the proper standard of review for [CUE], which clearly falls within the Veterans Court's jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(1)....

Accordingly, we remand the case to the Veterans Court for it to decide the proper standard(s) for its review of the Board's determination in this case respecting CUE and then to decide whether under the applicable standard of review the initial denial of the CUE claim was reversible error.

Andrews v. Principi, 25 Fed.Appx. at 998.

II. ANALYSIS Section 5109A of title 38, U.S. Code, provides that "a decision by the Secretary under this chapter is subject to revision on the grounds of [CUE]." 38 U.S.C. § 5109A. If the evidence establishes the error, "the prior decision shall be reversed or revised." Id. Section 3.105(a) of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that "[p]revious determinations which are final and binding... will be accepted as correct in the absence of [CUE]." 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a) (2003). A motion by a claimant that there was CUE in a previous RO decision is a collateral attack on that decision. See Smith (William) v. Brown, 35 F.3d 1516, 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Where evidence establishes such error, the prior decision will be reversed or amended. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a).

In Russell v. Principi, the Court defined CUE as follows:

Either the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before the adjudicator or the statutory or regulatory provisions extant at the time were incorrectly applied.... [CUE] is the sort of error which, had it not been made, would have manifestly changed the outcome... [, an error that is] undebatable, so that it can be said that reasonable minds could only conclude that the original decision was fatally flawed.

Russell, 3 Vet.App. 310, 313 (1992) (en banc); see also Bustos v. West, 179 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir.

1999); Damrel v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 242, 245 (1994) (quoting Russell, 3 Vet.App. at 313-14). A CUE allegation must identify the alleged error with "some degree of specificity." Crippen v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 412, 420 (1996); Fugo, 6 Vet.App. at 44 (holding that "to raise CUE there must be some degree of specificity as to what the alleged error is and... persuasive reasons must be given as to why the result would have been manifestly different").

A. Standard of Review As noted above, in its review of this case, the Federal Circuit stated that Mr. Andrews had "clearly raised a question of law, namely: the proper standard of review for clear and unmistakable error," and charged this Court "to decide the proper standard(s) for its review of the Board's determination in this case respecting CUE." Andrews v. Principi, supra. This Court established more than 11 years ago the proper standard of review for considering Board decisions determining

whether CUE had been committed in previous RO decisions:

In Russell, this Court upheld as a valid regulation 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a), and ruled that we have jurisdiction to review B[oard] decisions on claims that [CUE] had been committed in previous [RO] determinations. [Russell], 3 Vet.App. at 312. We also held in Russell that the scope of our review of such decisions is necessarily limited by our jurisdictional statutes. Id.[] at 314-15. We cannot conduct a plenary review of the merits of the original decision; rather, we are limited to determining whether the B[oard]'s subsequent decision which has considered possible [CUE] in previous adjudications, the one on appeal before us, was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3)(A)... ;

Russell, [3 Vet.App.] at 314-15.

Archer v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 433, 437 (1992) (emphasis added).

In accordance with the directives of the Federal Circuit, this Court here reiterates that the standard of review in this case as to the Board's decision (on the merit of the CUE allegation) is the same standard enunciated in Archer, supra, namely, determining whether the Board decision on appeal to this Court is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law" in denying the CUE allegation. 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3)(A). The appellant has not presented here a basis, nor can the Court fathom any, for establishing and applying in this case a standard of review different from the standard that has been consistently applied to appellants who, over the past 11 plus years, have alleged CUE in prior final RO decisions. Although Archer and Russell were decided before the CUE law was enacted in 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-111, § 1(a), 717 Stat. 2271 (1997), it has long been established that section 5109A "merely codified 38 C.F.R. §

Pages:   || 2 | 3 |

Similar works:

«This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 12/23/2016 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2016-30885, and on FDsys.gov 9110-9M DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 8 CFR Parts 214 and 264 Removal of Regulations Relating to Special Registration Process for Certain Nonimmigrants AGENCY: Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is removing outdated regulations relating to an obsolete special...»

«MWRA Advisory Board Executive Committee Meeting Advisory Board Conference Room 100 1st Avenue, Building 39-4 Friday, September 13, 2013 8:30 AM Boston, MA 02129 Attendees John Sullivan Boston Lou Taverna Newton Zig Peret Wilbraham Tim MacDonald Cambridge Michael Coffey Quincy Joseph Favaloro Staff Andrew DeSantis Chelsea Nick Rystrom Revere Matthew Romero Staff Katherine Dunphy Milton Rob King Somerville Cornelia Potter Staff Andy Pappastergion MWRA BOD John DeAmicis Stoneham Mary Ann McClellan...»

«RED HERRING PROSPECTUS Please read section 32 of the Companies Act, 2013 Dated: March 7, 2016 100% Book Built Issue BHARAT WIRE ROPES LIMITED Our Company was incorporated as Bharat Ropes Private Limited on July 24, 1986, at Mumbai, Maharashtra as a private limited company under the Companies Act, 1956. Our Company was converted into a public limited company pursuant to approval of the shareholders in an extraordinary general meeting held on May 2, 1992 and consequently, the name of our Company...»

«Practicing Peace, Living with War: Going Upriver in Colombia1 Kimberly Theidon Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology Harvard University ktheidon@wjh.harvard.edu Copyright Praxis Institute for Social Justice, 2001 It is disconcerting to share a hotel room with someone who needs to tell you in detail how he learned to use a machete to chop the human body up into unrecognizable chunks of flesh. Vladimiro’s military training showed not only in his butchering prowess, but also in his...»

«USIHC 2016 Annual Meeting Radisson Hotel Portland Airport 6233 NE 78th CT Portland, OR 97218 Saturday, January 16, 2016 8:30am – 9:00am Opening Remarks – Review of Agenda 9:00am – 9:45am Robert Eversole, Trailmeister – “When the shyte hits the fan.” 9:45am – Noon Meeting/Business Noon – 1:00pm Lunch – Buffet hosted by USIHC 1:00pm – 1:45pm Freya Sturm – “Riding: A Balancing Act with Isi Rider.” 1:45pm – 2:30pm Robert Eversole, Trailmeister – “Horse Camping...»

«Da “Time”, 6 settembre 1943 ITALY: Five Fascists Fascismo's onetime bosses did not give up easily. Around five of them swirled report and rumor: Dead Fascist. Handsome, bemedaled Ettore Muti had been the incarnation of Fascismo's warlike spirit, according to Notizie di Roma. Lieutenant colonel and ace of the air force, he had served in Ethiopia, Spain, Albania, Greece. He had been Party secretary when Italy entered World War II. Now the Badoglio Government, pressing its purge of...»

«Submission to: Corporate Communications: An International Journal Third round: implementation of reviewers’ suggestions (see attached document) Communicating CSR: Practices among Switzerland’s top 300 companies Authors: Gregory Birth, Laura Illia, Francesco Lurati, and Alessandra Zamparini Correspondence Address: Francesco Lurati, Institute for Corporate Communication, Faculty of Communication Sciences, University of Lugano, Via G. Buffi 13, 6900 Lugano, Switzerland, Tel. +41 (0)58 666 45...»


«Community Development INVESTMENT REVIEW 43 What Would Google Do? Designing Appropriate Social Impact Measurement Systems Lester M. Salamon Johns Hopkins University N o one as concerned as I have been with efforts to bring measurement and analysis to the social sector and civil society could fail to be impressed by the creativity and commitment that was evident at the recent Federal Reserve conference on measuring the nonfinancial impacts of social and environmental interventions, or by the...»

«CONSOLIDATED ACTS OF THE SYNOD OF THE ANGLICAN DIOCESE OF MELBOURNE Parishes Act 1987 No. 2 of 1987 Serial No. 138 Reprinted as at 1 July 2012 incorporating amendments up to No. 1/2011 PARISHES ACT 1987 TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART I PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Interpretation 4. Financial year of parish PART II VESTRIES 5. Constitution of vestry 6. Annual meeting 7. Notice of annual meeting 8. Nominations 9. Elections Incumbent’s appointments 10. 11. Ballot papers 12....»

«Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited and The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited take no responsibility for the contents of this announcement, make no representation as to its accuracy or completeness and expressly disclaim any liability whatsoever for any loss howsoever arising from or in reliance upon the whole or any part of the contents of this announcement. This announcement is for information purposes only and does not constitute an invitation or offer to acquire, purchase or...»

«MINUTES NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION BOARD MEETING NO. CC-175 September 15, 2011 Minutes of a meeting of the New York State Canal Corporation, held in the Board Room at the Corporation’s Buffalo Division Office, 455 Cayuga Road, Suite 800, Cheektowaga, NY 14225 as well as via video conference at NYSTA Administrative Headquarters, 200 Southern Boulevard, Albany, New York 12209 and at the New York Division Office, 4 Executive Blvd., Suite 400, Suffern, NY 10901. The meetings of the New York...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2017 www.thesis.dislib.info - Online materials, documents

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.