Dorothy M. Moffitt v. Eric K. Shinseki
26 Vet. App. 424
Vet. App.2014Background
- Moffitt appeals a November 23, 2010 Board denial of enhanced dependency and indemnity compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1311(a)(2).
- Claim for enhanced DIC was filed in August 1999, prior to later regulatory prohibitions on hypothetical entitlement.
- Regulations 38 C.F.R. § 20.1106 and § 3.10(f)(3) were amended/promulgated in December 2005 to bar hypothetical entitlement for § 1311(a)(2) claims.
- Federal Circuit decisions, including Kernea, Tarver, NOVA III, Rodriguez, and NOVA I, frame retroactivity and hypothetical entitlement issues.
- The Board held that applying § 20.1106 and § 3.10(f)(3) retroactively to bar hypothetical entitlement was permissible after Princess Cruises factors analysis.
- Court affirms the Board’s decision, concluding retroactive application does not violate retroactivity standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retroactive application of § 20.1106 and § 3.10(f)(3) barred hypothetical entitlement for § 1311(a)(2) claims was permissible | Moffitt contends Kernea should not apply; filed before regulatory change. | Board correctly applied amendments; Kernea governs retroactivity. | Permissible retroactivity; Board did not err. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kernea v. Shinseki, 724 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (retroactivity of § 3.10(f)(3) and § 20.1106 to bar hypothetical entitlement)
- Tarver v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (notice of departmental interpretation; retroactivity considerations)
- Rodriguez v. Peake, 511 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (retroactive application of § 3.22 to § 1318 claims)
- NOVA I, 260 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (statutory interpretation; conflicting VA regulations on hypothetical entitlement)
- NOVA III, 476 F.3d 872 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (regulations implementing 1311/1318 reasonable interpretations; retroactivity context)
- Hix v. West, 12 Vet.App. 138 (1999) (entitled to receive language; de novo review conceptually)
- Hix v. Gober, 225 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ('entitled to receive' requires de novo consideration with record evidence)
- Rodriguez v. Peake, 511 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (retroactivity of § 3.22 for 1318 claims (see above))
- Princess Cruises v. United States, 397 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (three-factor test for retroactivity)
- Green v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 111 (1997) (hypothetical entitlement availability)
- Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (1988) (retroactivity not favored; statutory/regulatory changes require clear language)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (three-factor retroactivity framework)