Merritt I. Anderson v. Anthony J. Principi
18 Vet. App. 371, 2004 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 579, 2004 WL 2035078 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A written communication from a claimant expressing dissatisfaction with an adjudicative determination and a desire to contest the result, even if framed as a question, must be liberally construed as a valid Notice of Disagreement (NOD) that triggers the VA's duty to issue a Statement of the Case (SOC).
Facts:
- Merritt I. Anderson served in the U.S. Army from May 24, 1960, to May 24, 1962.
- His entire military service was conducted within the continental United States, in Texas, Alabama, and Utah.
- Anderson did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam.
- After his service, Anderson was granted VA benefits for tinnitus, but he believed the effective date of the award should have been earlier.
- Anderson also suffered from other health conditions, including depression and ailments he attributed to smoking tobacco during his service.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1992, Merritt Anderson filed a claim for non-service-connected pension with a VA Regional Office (RO).
- In April 1993, the RO denied the pension claim, and Anderson filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) in May 1993.
- In September 1995, Anderson filed a claim for an increased rating for hearing loss.
- In February 1996, the RO granted a 10% rating for tinnitus, effective September 1995.
- In March 1996, Anderson sent two letters to the RO questioning why the effective date was not earlier.
- In September 1997, Anderson filed a claim for disabilities secondary to in-service tobacco use, which the RO denied in December 1997. No NOD was filed for this claim.
- On December 7, 1999, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) issued a decision denying twelve of Anderson's claims but did not address his pension claim or his challenge to the tinnitus effective date.
- Anderson, as appellant, appealed the BVA'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 a veteran's written correspondence to a VA Regional Office that expresses dissatisfaction with an effective date by questioning why benefits were not 'allowed back' to an earlier year constitute a valid Notice of Disagreement (NOD) that requires the VA to issue a Statement of the Case (SOC)?
Opinions:
Majority - Ivers, J.
Yes. A veteran's written correspondence expressing dissatisfaction with a decision's effective date and questioning why an earlier date was not granted constitutes a valid Notice of Disagreement (NOD). The court liberally interpreted Anderson’s letters, which asked why his tinnitus compensation 'wasn’t allowed back in 1985,' as an expression of disagreement with the assigned effective date. This inquiry met the regulatory definition of an NOD under 38 C.F.R. § 20.201 because it was a written communication expressing dissatisfaction and a desire to contest the result. Because a valid NOD was filed, the VA Regional Office was statutorily required under 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d) to issue a Statement of the Case (SOC), which it failed to do. The court held the proper remedy for this procedural error, based on precedent like Fenderson v. West, is to vacate the Board's decision on this matter and remand it for issuance of an SOC. The court also found it lacked jurisdiction over the tobacco claim because no NOD was ever filed, and over the depression secondary to impotence claim because it was raised for the first time before the court.
Concurring - Steinberg, J.
Yes. Judge Steinberg agreed with the majority's conclusion but wrote separately to address a jurisdictional argument the majority found unnecessary to decide. He clarified that following the repeal of a provision of the Veterans' Judicial Review Act, the filing of an NOD is no longer a jurisdictional prerequisite for the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims itself, although it remains a statutory requirement for the VA's internal appellate process. The court has jurisdiction not only over claims the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) decides, but also over claims the BVA improperly fails to address, such as when a valid NOD was filed at the Regional Office but the BVA ignored the issue. This ensures that the court can correct the BVA's procedural errors and oversights, preventing an incorrect or incomplete final decision from standing without judicial review.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the pro-claimant principle of liberal construction for veterans' filings, ensuring that appellate rights are not forfeited due to a lack of legal precision. It establishes that informal written inquiries expressing dissatisfaction are sufficient to trigger the VA's procedural duties, specifically the issuance of a Statement of the Case. This precedent holds the VA accountable for recognizing and acting upon expressions of disagreement, thereby safeguarding a veteran's path to appellate review even when their communication is not formally styled as an appeal.
