Cook v. Snyder
28 Vet. App. 330
| Vet. App. | 2017Background
- Veteran Warren B. Cook sought service connection for a lumbar spine disorder and TDIU; his claim was reopened and remanded multiple times after administrative and Court proceedings.
- Cook testified at a Board hearing in June 2012; the Board then reopened the claim and remanded for further development (records, opinions).
- After further development and an October 2014 joint-remand by the Court, Cook requested another Board hearing (post-remand) to submit additional evidence and testimony.
- The Board denied the post-remand hearing request as unnecessary because Cook previously had a Board hearing, and then denied service connection and TDIU in Feb. 2015.
- The Court considered whether 38 U.S.C. § 7107(b) requires the Board to grant a requested hearing after a Court remand even if the claimant previously had a Board hearing; it found the statute ambiguous and analyzed deference doctrines.
- Holding: the Court set aside the Board decision and remanded, holding that under § 7107(b) a claimant who had a prior Board hearing is entitled, upon request, to a Board hearing after a Court remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 7107(b) entitles a claimant who previously had a Board hearing to another Board hearing after a Court remand | Cook: the statute and regulations do not limit hearings to one; the right to be heard must be available post-remand and due process requires it | Secretary: indefinite article “a/an” implies a single hearing; regulations and administrative burdens support limiting hearings; agency interpretation merits deference | Court: § 7107(b) ambiguous; Chevron deference not warranted; under Skidmore and veterans‑friendly interpretive principles, claimant is entitled to request a post-remand Board hearing; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (framework for statutory deference to agency interpretations)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (respect owed to agency interpretations proportional to their persuasiveness)
- Sursely v. Peake, 551 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir.) (indefinite article alone insufficient to delimit agency authority)
- Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (presumption to resolve statutory ambiguity in favor of veterans)
- Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet.App. 369 (claimants may submit additional evidence after remand and may receive Board hearings post-remand)
- Arneson v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 379 (describing importance of Board personal hearings and credibility determinations)