Pacheco v. Gibson,
27 Vet.App. 21 (July 17, 2014) (en banc)
38 C.F.R. § 3.157(b),
INFORMAL CLAIM
Held: “A previous allowance of pension can
result in an earlier effective date for claims for increased benefits, but not for
claims to reopen – which require a previous disallowance for the
service-connected disability not being compensable in degree.”
Veteran was awarded nonservice-connected
pension benefits in 1974. He continued to apply for service-connected benefits
throughout the 1970s. In 1978, he was notified that he was no longer eligible
for VA pension benefits because his income was too high. He continued to
attempt to reopen his claims for service-connected disability benefits, and was
finally awarded benefits in 2005, with an effective date of January 2002, the
date VA received his most recent request to reopen.
Mr. Pacheco appealed for an earlier effective
date, and submitted additional evidence, including service records and a 2001
VA medical record. The Board denied the appeal. In February 2011, on appeal to
the CAVC, the Secretary argued that remand was necessary for the Board to
address whether a 2001 medical record was an informal claim to reopen under 38
C.F.R. § 3.157(b). The Court remanded on that basis.
On remand, the Board determined that the 2001
VA medical record was not a claim under § 3.157(b), finding that (1) a formal
pension or compensation claim had not been allowed – or had not been disallowed
because the condition was noncompensable – and (2) Mr. Pacheco was not service
connected for the conditions at the time of the 2001 examination. The Board
denied an earlier effective date.
On appeal to the Court, Mr. Pacheco argued
that the Board should have awarded an earlier effective under § 3.157(b)
because he was previously awarded pension
benefits and he filed a claim to reopen his previously denied claim for
compensation benefits within one year of the 2001 examination. The Secretary
argued that the plain language of the regulation should be read as “pairing”
certain sentences with other sentences in the regulation, which would only
allow a previous pension award to result in an earlier effective date for an
increased-rating claim, but not for a claim to reopen. Thus, the 2001 medical
record could not serve as an informal claim to reopen “because his claim was
not previously disallowed for being not compensable in degree.” 27 Vet.App. at
25. Alternatively, the Secretary argued that the language was ambiguous and
that deference to VA’s interpretation was warranted. Id.
In an en banc decision, the Court determined
that the language was ambiguous, and afforded deference to the Secretary’s
interpretation. The Court found that the Secretary’s interpretation was “not
plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation” when viewed within the
context of the regulation’s history and VA’s purportedly “consistent” practice
in interpreting this regulation. Id.
at 26-29. The Court held that Mr. Pacheco did not meet the criteria of §
3.157(b) that would allow the 2001 VA medical record to serve as an informal
claim because at that time he did not have a claim that had been disallowed
because it was noncompensable. Id. at
29-30. However, the Court remanded
the matter for the Board to consider whether Mr. Pacheco would be entitled to
an earlier effective date under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c), based on his 2008
submission of military service records. Id.
at 30-31.
In a partial dissent, joined by three other
judges, Judge Davis disagreed with the majority’s deference to VA. Id. at 36. In a separate dissent, Judge
Greenberg questioned the ongoing validity of Auer deference (Auer v.
Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 462 (1997)), stating that he “would not reward the
Secretary for writing an ambiguous, and unintelligible, regulation.” Id. at 43. Judge Greenberg questioned the
CAVC’s jurisdictional powers to grant equitable relief, concluding: “We must
provide equitable remedies to deserving veterans and harmonize our
jurisprudence with the veterans canon, applying the full extent of our powers
when appropriate.” Id. at 44-45.
No comments:
Post a Comment