Corson v. McDonald
662 F. App'x 954
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- David C. Corson is a Navy veteran who was service-connected in 1961 for nasopharyngeal angiofibroma with a 30% rating.
- In April 1983 the Board denied an increased rating, denied that depressive neurosis was secondary to the service-connected condition, and denied TDIU.
- Corson sought revision of the April 1983 Board decision multiple times, alleging clear and unmistakable error (CUE); the Board denied revision in October 2001 and later dismissed subsequent CUE motions with prejudice.
- The Veterans Court and this court previously affirmed dismissals, holding that once the Board issues a final decision on a CUE motion that prior Board decision is no longer subject to further CUE revision under 38 C.F.R. § 20.1409(c).
- Corson renewed CUE and related claims (including benefit-of-the-doubt and due-process/record-tampering allegations); the Veterans Court dismissed the 2015 motion with prejudice and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a final Board decision on a CUE motion can itself be revised for CUE | Corson argued the Board's October 2001 decision denying CUE in the April 1983 decision itself contained CUE and could be revised | VA/Veterans Court argued prior appellate rulings and 38 C.F.R. § 20.1409(c) bar relitigation; issue preclusion applies | Held: Barred. Collateral estoppel and the regulation prevent relitigation; prior adjudication controls |
| Whether the benefit-of-the-doubt rule applies to CUE motions | Corson contended VA failed to apply 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) in evaluating his CUE motion | VA argued benefit-of-the-doubt does not apply to CUE because CUE requires a determinative error, not a balance-of-evidence inquiry | Held: Benefit-of-the-doubt inapplicable to CUE motions (CUE is not a close-evidence situation) |
| Whether alleged VA alteration of records raises a cognizable due-process claim | Corson alleged the VA fraudulently altered medical records, invoking due process | VA argued the allegation is unsupported and insufficient to raise a non-frivolous constitutional claim | Held: Insufficient. Bare, unsupported allegations do not present a non-frivolous constitutional issue for review |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 464 U.S. 165 (doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of issues conclusively determined)
- Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Disney Enters., 702 F.3d 640 (issue preclusion protects finality of judgments)
- Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333 (limits on review of factual determinations by Veterans Court)
- Cushman v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290 (de novo review of Veterans Court legal determinations)
- Hillyard v. Shinseki, 695 F.3d 1257 (one CUE request per finally decided Board claim)
- Disabled Am. Veterans v. Gober, 234 F.3d 682 (CUE is not a balance-of-evidence standard; benefit-of-the-doubt does not apply to CUE)
- Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332 (unsupported constitutional labels do not confer appellate jurisdiction)
Affirmed.