Deshotel v. Nicholson
457 F.3d 1258, 2006 WL 2075134, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 18906 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (RO) that acts on some claims but fails to explicitly address other implied claims is considered a final decision as to all claims, requiring a timely direct appeal or a clear and unmistakable error (CUE) claim to challenge the unaddressed claims.
Facts:
- James L. Deshotel served on active duty in the United States Army from October 1965 to May 1969.
- During his service, Deshotel was involved in a car accident, sustaining a cerebral concussion, a dislocated shoulder, and a fractured clavicle.
- In May 1969, Deshotel filed a claim for disability compensation benefits for his injuries; the VA regional office granted service connection for his shoulder injury but did not grant service connection for his residual head injury claims.
- In July 1984, Deshotel filed an application to reopen his denied claim for service connection for residuals of his head injury and for an increased disability rating for his back and shoulder injuries, contending it should have been construed to include a claim for psychiatric disability.
- In January 1985, after conducting a medical examination (including a psychiatric examination), the RO granted service connection for “status post head trauma with post traumatic headaches,” finding the injury 10% disabling, but did not specifically address any secondary claim for psychiatric disability.
- In August 1999, Deshotel again sought to reopen his compensation claim, this time to include claims for “memory loss and depression due to head/brain disease,” which the RO explicitly treated as a psychiatric claim.
Procedural Posture:
- James L. Deshotel filed a claim for disability compensation benefits with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in May 1969.
- The RO granted service connection for Deshotel's shoulder injury but did not grant service connection for his residual head injury claims.
- In July 1984, Deshotel filed an application to reopen his denied claim for head injury and for an increased disability rating for back and shoulder injuries.
- In January 1985, the RO granted service connection for "status post head trauma with post traumatic headaches" but did not explicitly address a psychiatric disability claim. Deshotel did not appeal this 1985 decision.
- In August 1999, Deshotel again sought to reopen his claim, this time specifically for "memory loss and depression due to head/brain disease."
- In March 2000, the RO denied service connection for Deshotel’s psychiatric disability claims.
- Deshotel filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) with the RO.
- On October 20, 2000, the RO issued a new decision, finding a 70% service-connected psychiatric disability, effective from August 4, 1999.
- Deshotel then filed a second NOD, arguing the effective date of the 70% psychiatric disability should have been July 20, 1984.
- The RO construed Deshotel's second NOD as an allegation of clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in the January 1985 decision but found no CUE.
- Deshotel appealed the RO's CUE decision to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which concluded there was no CUE in the January 1985 decision.
- Deshotel appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veteran’s Court), challenging the 1999 effective date and alleging CUE in the 1985 decision, but the Veteran’s Court dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office decision, which grants some claims but implicitly denies or fails to explicitly address other related implied claims, constitute a final decision on all claims, thereby requiring a timely direct appeal or a clear and unmistakable error (CUE) claim to challenge the unaddressed claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Dyk, Circuit Judge
Yes, a Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office decision that grants some claims but fails to explicitly address other implied claims does constitute a final decision on all claims, requiring a timely direct appeal or a clear and unmistakable error (CUE) claim to challenge the unaddressed claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Veteran's Court's dismissal, holding that when a veteran files multiple claims with the RO at the same time, and the RO’s decision acts on one claim but fails to specifically address another, the second claim is deemed denied, and the appeal period begins to run. The court relied on Andrews v. Nicholson, which explicitly rejected the contention that an implied claim remains pending and unadjudicated when not addressed by an RO decision. Instead, the RO’s failure to address an implied claim is properly challenged through a CUE motion or a timely direct appeal. The court emphasized that the statutory scheme provides only two exceptions to the rule of finality for VA decisions: a CUE claim or a claim to reopen based on new and material evidence. Since Deshotel did not file a timely direct appeal from the 1985 RO decision and abandoned his CUE claim on appeal, his psychiatric claim was considered finally adjudicated in 1985 for the purpose of determining the effective date of benefits.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the finality of Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (RO) decisions, particularly concerning claims that are implicitly denied or not explicitly addressed. It reinforces that veterans must either timely appeal an RO decision or pursue a Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE) claim to challenge unadjudicated claims, preventing them from remaining indefinitely 'pending.' The ruling ensures administrative efficiency and provides a clear framework for when VA decisions become conclusive regarding all issues raised or implied, significantly impacting how veterans and their representatives must monitor and respond to RO adjudications to preserve their rights.
