Richard S. Brokowski v. Eric K. Shinseki
23 Vet. App. 79 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An informal claim for VA benefits must specifically identify the benefit sought by describing the disability or its symptoms; a general statement claiming benefits for 'all disabilities of record' is insufficient to preserve an effective date for a condition that was not diagnosed or otherwise identified in the record at the time of the claim.
Facts:
- Richard S. Brokowski served in the U.S. Navy from February 1965 to September 1969.
- In December 1976, Brokowski was hospitalized for pain, numbness, and discoloration in his right foot, and was diagnosed with blocked arteries (peripheral vascular disease).
- His physician, Dr. Robinson, initially noted it was 'possible that the patient did have some other neurological problem,' and in January 1977 suggested a 'possible Morton’s neuroma.'
- After further testing and surgery, Brokowski's discharge diagnosis in April 1977 was for peripheral vascular disease and a lumbar back disorder, with no mention of any continuing suspected neurological condition.
- In June 1978, Brokowski filed a VA claim for 'acute depression [and] anxiety,' adding the statement, 'This is also a claim for service[] connection for all disabilities of record.'
- In October 1989, Brokowski filed a separate claim specifically for 'severe peripheral vascular disease.'
- In October 1993, Brokowski was formally diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy for the first time via a nerve conduction study.
- In a letter received by the VA on February 15, 1994, Brokowski's counsel clarified that he was seeking service connection for peripheral neuropathy, a condition recently diagnosed.
Procedural Posture:
- In June 1978, Richard S. Brokowski filed a claim with the VA regional office (RO). In July 1978, the RO denied the claim, and Brokowski did not appeal.
- In October 1989, Brokowski filed a new claim with the RO for peripheral vascular disease. The RO denied this claim in February 1990.
- Brokowski filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) with the 1990 denial, but the RO failed to issue a Statement of the Case (SOC), leaving the appeal pending.
- In February 1994, Brokowski, through counsel, filed a claim for peripheral neuropathy. In January 1995, the RO denied this claim.
- After lengthy proceedings, including two remands from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA), the BVA granted service connection for peripheral neuropathy in November 2002.
- The RO assigned disability ratings with an effective date in 1994. After an NOD from Brokowski, the RO amended the effective date to February 15, 1994.
- Brokowski appealed to the BVA, arguing for an earlier effective date based on his 1978 or 1989 claims.
- On January 11, 2007, the BVA issued a final decision denying an effective date for the peripheral neuropathy award earlier than February 15, 1994.
- Brokowski, the appellant, then appealed the BVA's decision on the effective date 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 claim for benefits that includes the general phrase 'all disabilities of record,' submitted with medical records that do not diagnose or clearly describe the symptoms of a specific condition, constitute a valid informal claim for that specific condition under 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Schoelen
No. A claim for benefits that includes the phrase 'all disabilities of record' does not constitute a valid informal claim for a specific disability if the application and supporting evidence at the time do not identify that disability or its symptoms. The court reasoned that an essential requirement for a valid informal claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) is that it must 'identify the benefit sought.' This requires a claimant to describe the nature of the disability, either by name, the body part affected, or a description of symptoms. Brokowski's 1978 application mentioned only anxiety and depression, and the vague phrase 'all disabilities of record' was insufficient to put the VA on notice of a claim for peripheral neuropathy. The medical records from that time did not contain a diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy; while a neurological issue was briefly considered, it was ultimately ruled out in favor of vascular and orthopedic diagnoses. The 'sympathetic reading' doctrine does not obligate the VA to prognosticate future medical diagnoses or conduct an 'unguided safari' through a veteran's records to find potential claims. The first communication that properly identified peripheral neuropathy as the benefit sought was the February 1994 letter from counsel, which correctly established the claim's effective date.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope and limits of the VA's pro-claimant 'duty to assist' and the 'sympathetic reading' doctrine. It establishes that while a claimant need not use technical medical terminology, they cannot rely on vague, catch-all phrases to preserve an early effective date for disabilities that are undiagnosed and unmentioned at the time of filing. The ruling balances the VA's duty to help veterans with the practical need for administrative efficiency, preventing the agency from being burdened with anticipating every potential future claim. This precedent reinforces that a valid claim must provide sufficient information for the VA to reasonably identify the specific condition being claimed, thereby discouraging the use of boilerplate language as a placeholder for future claims.
Unlock the full brief for Richard S. Brokowski v. Eric K. Shinseki