Edwards v. Shinseki
2009 WL 3030362, 582 F.3d 1351, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 21119 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A diagnosis of mental illness, without additional evidence that the veteran is legally incompetent or that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was aware of such incompetence, does not trigger a heightened due process obligation for the VA to provide notice beyond standard written correspondence mailed to the claimant's correct address.
Facts:
- Irvin K. Edwards began active military duty in October 1977.
- In February 1978, while on duty, Edwards was hospitalized and diagnosed with a psychotic disorder but was discharged to full duty after his symptoms resolved with medication.
- Edwards received an administrative discharge in April 1978 based on a diagnosed personality disorder.
- In July 1978, Edwards filed his first claim for a disability rating for a nervous disorder.
- In August 1987, a VA Day Hospital diagnosed Edwards with residual schizophrenia.
- In November 1987, Edwards sought to reopen his previously denied disability claim.
- The VA Regional Office (RO) sent two notices to Edwards's correct address in 1988 to schedule a required physical examination; the notices were not returned as undeliverable.
- Edwards did not attend the scheduled examination.
Procedural Posture:
- The VA Regional Office (RO) denied Irvin K. Edwards's claim for disability benefits in July 1981; Edwards did not appeal.
- After Edwards sought to reopen his claim, the RO denied it again in March 1988; Edwards did not appeal.
- Edwards filed again to reopen his claim in January 1997, and the RO granted service connection in 1999 with an effective date of January 1997.
- Edwards appealed the effective date to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the 'Board'), which denied an earlier date.
- Edwards appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ('Veterans Court'), which granted a joint motion to remand the case to the Board.
- On remand, the Board again denied the claim. Edwards appealed again to the Veterans Court, which granted a second joint motion to remand.
- On the second remand, the Board found the 1988 notice was adequate and denied Edwards's claim for an earlier effective date.
- Edwards appealed to the Veterans Court, arguing for the first time that his due process rights were violated. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board's decision.
- Edwards appealed the Veterans Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
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 the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) violate a mentally ill veteran's Fifth Amendment due process rights by providing standard written notice of a required medical examination, when the VA has no specific evidence that the veteran is incompetent or unable to comprehend the notice?
Opinions:
Majority - Rader, Circuit Judge
No. The VA does not violate a mentally ill veteran's due process rights by providing standard written notice where there is no evidence the veteran was incompetent to comprehend it or that the VA was aware of such an inability. The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard, and while due process applies to VA benefit proceedings, the specific procedures required can vary. In this case, standard notice sent to Mr. Edwards's correct address was sufficient. The court distinguished between mental illness and legal incompetence, stating that a medical diagnosis alone does not prove an inability to understand official notices. Over a thirty-year period, Mr. Edwards never contended he could not understand the notices, nor did he request a competency hearing, only raising the issue at a late stage of his appeal. Without evidence that Edwards was unable to comprehend the notice in 1988 and that the VA was aware of this specific inability, the VA had no reason to take extraordinary measures such as appointing a guardian or tailoring the notice.
Additional views - Rader, Circuit Judge
While concurring in the result, this opinion questions the precedent set in Cushman v. Shinseki, which held that applicants for veterans' benefits have a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Citing Supreme Court precedent like Board of Regents v. Roth, the opinion argues that due process protections attach to benefits a person has already acquired, not to the mere unilateral expectation of an applicant. An application process is meant to determine if a 'legitimate claim of entitlement' exists; granting property rights before that determination 'places the cart squarely in front of the horse.' Unlike Social Security benefits, which can be seen as earned entitlements, veterans' benefits are contingent on meeting specific eligibility criteria, which undermines the claim to a pre-existing property right during the application phase.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the VA's due process obligations toward claimants with known mental health conditions. It establishes that a mere diagnosis of mental illness is insufficient to require the VA to provide 'tailored' or non-standard notice. The ruling places the burden on the claimant to produce evidence not only of their inability to comprehend official communications but also that the VA was aware of that specific limitation. This precedent protects the VA from having to presume incompetence based on a medical record, thereby streamlining its notice procedures, but it may create a higher bar for vulnerable veterans seeking to challenge procedural errors retroactively.
Unlock the full brief for Edwards v. Shinseki