U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit
Steele v. Collins, (23-2049) | Decided May 1, 2025
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) affirmed the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) decision finding that the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) correctly applied the Cogburn factors in finding that a claim for headaches had been implicitly denied when the VA denied a claim for the residuals of a head injury. The Veteran argued that his 1991 claim for headaches remained pending because he hadn’t received proper notice, and the Board found that the headache claim had been implicitly denied. The Court affirmed. The Veteran appealed to the Federal Circuit arguing that under the Federal Circuit’s holding Ruel, the notice must include the reasons for the implicit denial. The Federal Circuit held, “it makes little sense to require an express statement of reasons separately addressing a claim that is not explicitly discussed. Rather the veteran receives sufficient notice of both the fact of the implicit denial and the reasons therefore when the stated reasons for the explicitly decided claim would be reasonably be understood to also extend to the implicitly denied claim.”
Hatfield v. Collins, (23-2280) | Decided May 2, 2025
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) affirmed the Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims (Court) decision finding that the Board of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Board) did not commit a clear and unmistakable error (CUE), in a 1980 decision denying Appellant’s negligence claim. Mrs. Hatfield is the surviving spouse of a Veteran who passed away in 1979 after receiving radiation treatment at the VA for lymphoma. In 1979, she filed a claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 351 (the precursor to §1151). The Board denied the claim because the VA provided adequate medical care. In 2010, she filed to re-open her claim for benefits under §1151 arguing that the VA failed to provide informed consent as required in 38 C.F.R. § 3.361(d)(1)(ii) which was enacted in 2004. The Board again denied her appeal. She appealed to the Court who reversed the Board decision finding that VA did not obtain informed consent. After winning her case for negligence, she filed a motion to revise the 1980 Board decision based on CUE. The Board denied the motion and the Court affirmed finding, “because in 1980 there was no suggestion in the statutory text or legislative or regulatory histories of either § 351 or §4131 that the VA’s failure to obtain a patient’s informed consent before administering a treatment amount to a compensable negligence claim.” In affirming the Court’s holding that there was not CUE in the 1980 Board decision, the Federal Circuit reviewed the text, legislative history and regulatory history of the informed consent provision in 38 U.S.C. § 4131 and negligence provision in 38 U.S.C. § 351 and found that none of it establishes that it is undebatable that, in 1980, the VA’s failure to obtain a patient’s informed consent before administering medical treatment amounted to a compensable negligence claim.
Amezquita v. Collins, (23-1975) | Decided May 5, 2025
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) affirmed the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) decision finding that the Court properly interpreted § 1111.The question raised in this appeal is whether the presumption of soundness applies when an asymptomatic preexisting condition was noted upon service entry. Mr. Amezquita had surgery on his right shoulder prior to entry into service. It was noted on his military entrance physical as asymptomatic. While in service, he was evaluated for injury to the shoulder after experiencing a popping. After service, he applied for benefits for a right shoulder condition. In denying the claim, the Board noted that the presumption of soundness did not apply and found that the Veteran had not demonstrated that his shoulder condition was aggravated by his military service. The Court affirmed relying on its holding in Verdon v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 529 (1996). The Federal Circuit agreed with the Court’s decision affirming that section 1111 does not limit “defects noted at the time of examination, acceptance and enrollment to only conditions symptomatic at that time.”
Herrington v. Collins, (23-2358) | Decided on May 30, 2025
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Veterans Court’s application of the “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” standard of review in evaluating whether the VA properly assigned an analogous diagnostic code to rate an unlisted disability under 38 C.F.R. § 4.20. Ultimately, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Veterans Court’s determination under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard of review that the VA properly assigned a thirty percent evaluation for GERD by analogy to Diagnostic Code 7346 for hiatal hernia.