James B. Criswell v. R. James Nicholson
20 Vet. App. 501, 2006 WL 3490407, 2006 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 1325 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a communication to constitute an informal claim for veterans' benefits, it must contain a written expression of the claimant's intent to seek those benefits. The mere presence of medical records documenting a disability is insufficient on its own to establish such a claim.
Facts:
- James B. Criswell served in the U.S. Army from March 1944 to August 1945.
- In August 1945, Criswell submitted an application for disability compensation for 'Trenchfoot' and 'exposure,' detailing symptoms related to his feet.
- The VA granted Criswell a disability rating for 'trenchfoot, bilateral,' which it noted was 'rated as frozen feet.'
- A February 1947 VA examination report noted cold-weather residuals affecting Criswell's upper extremities (hands).
- In August 1997, Criswell formally requested service connection for his hands due to frostbite.
Procedural Posture:
- In July 1999, a VA regional office granted James B. Criswell service connection for cold-weather residuals in his hands, but assigned an effective date of August 21, 1997.
- Criswell appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board), seeking an earlier effective date based on his 1945 and 1947 records.
- In a February 12, 2003 decision, the Board denied Criswell an effective date prior to August 21, 1997.
- Criswell, as appellant, appealed the Board's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
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 mere presence of medical evidence in a veteran's file documenting a disability constitute an informal claim for benefits for that disability, absent a written communication from the veteran indicating an intent to apply for such benefits?
Opinions:
Majority - Hagel, J.
No. The mere presence of medical evidence documenting a disability does not constitute an informal claim for benefits because it lacks the essential element of a written communication expressing the claimant's intent to apply. Regulations and precedent require that any claim, formal or informal, must be a written document identifying the benefit and expressing some intent to seek it. While the VA must give a 'sympathetic reading' to filings, it is not required to 'conjure up issues' not raised by the claimant. Criswell's 1945 application only mentioned trenchfoot, and while his 1947 medical records noted issues with his hands, there was no accompanying communication indicating he was seeking benefits for them. The narrow exceptions where medical records can constitute a claim (to show an increase in a rated disability or to reopen a denied claim) do not apply here.
Concurring - Kasold, J.
I agree with the majority's conclusion. Criswell's additional argument—that the VA Regional Office failed to adjudicate a claim for his hands that was implied in his 1945 application—is procedurally improper. Such an argument, which alleges a failure by the agency, should be raised through a request for revision on the basis of clear and unmistakable error (CUE) at the Regional Office level, not raised for the first time on appeal to this Court.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the VA's duty to assist and reinforces the formal requirements for what constitutes a claim. It establishes that while the VA must read a veteran's filings sympathetically, this duty does not extend to initiating claims for every condition mentioned in a veteran's medical file. The ruling places a clear burden on claimants to explicitly communicate their intent to seek benefits for specific conditions, thereby preventing veterans from using decades-old medical notes to establish much earlier effective dates for benefits unless they had previously expressed intent to file for that specific condition.
