Lexplug logoLexplug

Golz v. Shinseki

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
590 F.3d 1317 (2010)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the statutory duty to assist veterans, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is only required to obtain records that are relevant to the specific disability claim being adjudicated. The VA may determine that records are not relevant without physically reviewing them if there is no reasonable possibility that they contain information that would help substantiate the claim.


Facts:

  • Julius J. Golz served in the U.S. Navy as an aviation ordinanceman from February 1969 to November 1972.
  • His service medical records did not contain any complaints of or treatment for a psychiatric condition.
  • In 1991, Golz was in a car accident that resulted in severe low back and leg pain.
  • In February 1995, the Social Security Administration (SSA) found Golz disabled due to his physical injuries from the car accident; the SSA decision summary did not mention any mental health conditions.
  • In January 2001, Golz sought treatment at a VA medical center, stating that he felt he had Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) but had not been previously diagnosed.
  • In April 2001, Golz filed a claim with the VA for compensation for PTSD, indicating on the application that he was receiving SSA disability benefits.
  • A subsequent VA medical exam diagnosed Golz with major depressive disorder and substance dependence but concluded that he did not meet the criteria for PTSD.

Procedural Posture:

  • The VA regional office (RO) denied Julius J. Golz's claim for service connection for PTSD in July 2001.
  • Golz filed a motion to reopen his claim in September 2003, which the RO denied in December 2003.
  • Golz appealed the RO's denial to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board).
  • On September 15, 2006, the Board denied the claim, finding that the VA had satisfied its duty to assist without obtaining Golz's SSA records.
  • Golz, as appellant, appealed the Board's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court).
  • The Veterans Court affirmed the Board's decision.
  • Golz, as appellant, appealed the Veterans Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Locked

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 VA's statutory duty to assist a claimant in obtaining 'relevant' records require the VA to obtain and review Social Security Administration (SSA) records before determining that they are not relevant to the veteran's disability claim?


Opinions:

Majority - Moore, Circuit Judge

No. The VA's statutory duty to assist does not require it to obtain records before determining their relevance if there is no reasonable possibility they would help substantiate the claim. The governing statute, 38 U.S.C. § 5103A, repeatedly limits the VA's obligation to obtaining only 'relevant' records. To interpret this as requiring the VA to obtain all records would render the word 'relevant' superfluous, violating a cardinal principle of statutory construction. Relevant records are those that relate to the specific injury for which benefits are sought and have a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. Here, Golz claimed PTSD, a psychiatric condition, while his SSA disability was for a back injury, a physical condition. The SSA decision summary contained no mention of mental health issues. Therefore, the Board's factual finding that the underlying SSA records were not relevant to the PTSD claim was reasonable and did not violate the VA's duty to assist.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the scope of the VA's statutory 'duty to assist,' establishing that the duty is not absolute and is bounded by a standard of relevance. It grants the VA the authority to make a threshold determination of a record's relevance based on available information, without needing to physically obtain and review the document itself. This balances the pro-claimant nature of the VA system with administrative efficiency, preventing the agency from expending resources to obtain records that have no reasonable possibility of substantiating a claim. The ruling reinforces that a veteran must provide some basis for believing that seemingly unrelated records may contain pertinent information to trigger the VA's duty to obtain them.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Golz v. Shinseki (2010) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Golz v. Shinseki