Groves v. Peake
2008 WL 1902496, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9397, 524 F.3d 1306 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b), if a veteran is diagnosed with a chronic disease during service, subsequent manifestations of that same disease are presumptively service-connected, and the veteran is not required to provide separate medical evidence of a nexus between the in-service and post-service diagnoses.
Facts:
- James C. Groves served in the U.S. Army from 1969-1972 and 1974-1979.
- In August 1979, while on active duty, Mr. Groves was diagnosed with an acute psychotic episode.
- In September 1979, still on active duty, Mr. Groves was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.
- Upon his administrative discharge in December 1979, Mr. Groves's final diagnosis was listed as 'antisocial personality disorder,' with no mention of schizophrenia.
- In September 1981, after his service ended, Mr. Groves was hospitalized and again diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.
- In November 1981, Mr. Groves was hospitalized a second time and diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, with the evaluation noting no symptoms of any personality disorders.
Procedural Posture:
- Mr. Groves filed a claim for service connection with a Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO).
- In March 1982, the RO denied the claim, stating there was no evidence of a chronic condition in his service medical records.
- In June 2000, Mr. Groves requested the RO reopen his claim, alleging clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in the 1982 decision to obtain an earlier effective date for benefits.
- The RO granted service connection effective June 2000 but found no CUE in the 1982 decision, denying the request for an earlier effective date.
- Mr. Groves appealed the denial of the earlier effective date to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which affirmed the RO's decision.
- Mr. Groves (appellant) then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which also affirmed the Board's decision.
- The Veterans Court granted Mr. Groves's motion for reconsideration but issued a similar opinion upholding its prior judgment.
- Mr. Groves (appellant) appealed the Veterans Court's decision to the United States 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 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) require a veteran to provide separate medical evidence of an etiological link between a post-service manifestation of a chronic disease and an in-service diagnosis of the same disease to establish service connection?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, Circuit Judge
No. The plain language of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) establishes a presumption of service connection for a chronic disease that manifests during service and reappears at any later date. The regulation does not require a veteran to provide additional medical evidence establishing an 'etiological link' or nexus between the in-service and post-service diagnoses. The Department of Veterans Affairs regulations explicitly classify psychoses, including paranoid schizophrenia, as chronic diseases. Because Mr. Groves was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia during service and again after service, he was entitled to this presumption. The only way to rebut the presumption is for the VA to show the later manifestation is 'clearly attributable to intercurrent causes.' Therefore, the Veterans Court committed legal error by requiring evidence of a medical nexus and affirming the denial of an earlier effective date based on this incorrect standard.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of the presumption of continuity for chronic diseases under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). It reinforces that once a chronic condition is established in service, the burden shifts to the VA to disprove the connection, rather than requiring the veteran to repeatedly prove it. The ruling streamlines the process for veterans seeking benefits for chronic conditions documented during their service, preventing the VA from imposing an extra-regulatory requirement of a 'medical nexus' opinion. This precedent strengthens the pro-veteran canon of construction by holding the VA strictly to the plain language of its own regulations.
