Deloach v. Shinseki
704 F.3d 1370
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Consolidated veterans' appeals involve claims for service connection for mental disorders (Deloach) and a left foot/ankle condition (Greene).
- The Board previously denied service connection, relying on an unfavorable medical nexus or insufficient etiological discussion.
- The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims remanded for adequate medical examinations and a proper statement of reasons and bases.
- Deloach involved multiple VA examinations; the Board remanded for an etiological opinion and proper analysis of conflicting medical opinions.
- Greene involved private nexus opinions outweighed by a VA C&P examiner’s report; the Board remanded for further development and assessment of evidence.
- The Federal Circuit addresses whether the CAVC may reverse the Board or must remand, and the proper scope of review under VBA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to reverse the Board instead of remand | Appellants argue reversal is proper under VBA when record supports favorable results. | Secretary contends reversal is not permitted; remand is proper to develop record. | Remand is appropriate; reversal not warranted under current record. |
| Jurisdiction to review remand decisions under Williams conditions | Appellants contend Williams conditions satisfied, permitting immediate review as final decisions. | Secretary argues remand decisions are non-final and not reviewable as final decisions. | Williams conditions satisfied; jurisdiction proper to review and remand orders. |
| Adequacy of Board's reasons and bases and adequacy of medical examinations | Board failed to provide adequate reasons/bases and relied on inadequate/unclear medical opinions. | Board adequately weighed evidence and complied with remand instructions. | Remand appropriate due to inadequate reasons and bases and/or inadequate medical examination. |
| Congressional intent to reverse clearly erroneous findings under VBA | Court should reverse clearly erroneous findings; VBA authorizes reversal to provide timely relief. | Court should follow weighing framework and remand where record requires further development. | Court may reverse only where findings are clearly erroneous; here, reversal not mandated; remand proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. West, 212 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (clear error review; appellate weighing not initial fact-finding)
- United States Gypsum Co. v. United States, 333 U.S. 364 (Supreme Ct. 1948) (clear-error standard; due regard to agency's fact-finding)
- Adams v. Principi, 256 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (remand when medical exam/et al. require explanation)
- Stevens v. Principi, 289 F.3d 814 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (remand for evidence gaps; proper remedial path when board errs)
- Joyce v. Nicholson, 443 F.3d 845 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (jurisdictional review of remand decisions; Williams framework)
- Myore v. Principi, 323 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (statutory authority to remand vs reverse; remand proper in some contexts)
- Duchesneau v. Shinseki, 679 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (remand authority where remand would not be moot; review of remand process)
- Winn v. Brown, 110 F.3d 56 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (remand vs final decision; limits on finality doctrine)
- Donnellan v. Shinseki, 676 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (authority to review remand decisions; limits of reversal)