Batson v. Shulkin
686 F. App'x 878
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Mr. Batson, a veteran, submitted a 1993 VA application for compensation/pension after surgery that left him legally blind; his form mentioned “will apply for SSI—A&A ? → legally blind.”
- The VA regional office (RO) issued favorable pension decisions in Sept. and Nov. 1993 and a confirming letter in Jan. 1994 but did not mention special monthly pension (SMP) for aid and attendance (A&A).
- In May 2005 Batson filed an explicit SMP (A&A) claim; the RO awarded SMP effective May 13, 2005.
- Between 2007 and 2014 the Board and the Veterans Court repeatedly remanded, at times finding the 1993 filing could be read as an implicit SMP claim and at times failing to apply the correct implicit-denial analysis.
- In 2014 the Board concluded the 1993 implicit SMP claim had been implicitly denied by the 1993/1994 RO actions; the Veterans Court affirmed that decision and Batson appealed to this court.
- This court vacated and remanded, holding the VA could not have implicitly denied the 1993 SMP claim before it recognized the claim (which did not occur until 2011) and ordering further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1993 RO decisions implicitly denied Batson's 1993 implicit SMP (A&A) claim | Batson: The RO never recognized or adjudicated an SMP claim in 1993–94, so it could not have implicitly denied it; the claim remained pending until 2005 award | Gov: The favorable 1993 pension decisions and subsequent communications implicitly disposed of any SMP claim raised in 1993 | Held: Implicit denial requires notice and adjudication; because VA did not recognize the claim until 2011, the 1993 documents could not have implicitly denied it, so the claim remained pending until 2005 award |
| Standard and elements for implicit denial doctrine | Batson: Implicit denial applies only if decision shows knowledge, adjudication, and notice regarding the specific claim | Gov: A favorable decision as to one benefit can be read to implicitly deny other benefits | Held: Reaffirmed Adams elements—knowledge, adjudication, and notice—and rejected stretching a favorable decision into an implicit denial absent language showing consideration and rejection |
| Whether the Board properly applied the law when finding an implicit denial | Batson: Board misapplied law by treating RO silence or favorable pension award as denial of SMP | Gov: Board's multiple remands and findings were appropriate | Held: Court found legal error in Board’s implicit-denial finding and vacated Veterans Court decision; remanded for reconsideration |
| Whether failure to assist / duty-to-develop should affect effective date analysis | Batson: If VA did not recognize claim in 1993, it failed its duty to assist and provide notice about what is needed for SMP | Gov: Not argued in depth to this court | Held: Court declined to decide duty-to-assist issue in first instance and left it for the Board to evaluate on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Shinseki, 568 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir.) (implicit denial doctrine requires notice that claim was considered and rejected)
- Deshotel v. Nicholson, 457 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir.) (implicit denial upheld where RO decision contained language showing the claim was considered and rejected)
- Andrews v. McDonald, [citation="646 F. App'x 1001"] (Fed. Cir.) (agency cannot implicitly deny a claim it never recognized; implicit denial requires evidence the claim was considered)
- Hudgens v. McDonald, 823 F.3d 630 (Fed. Cir.) (standards of review for Veterans Court statutory and regulatory interpretations)
- Ingram v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 232 (Vet. App.) (implicit denial inquiry focuses on whether decision would put a reasonable person on notice the claim was adjudicated)