Geib v. Shinseki
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22005
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- World War II veteran Edward W. Geib has multiple service‑connected disabilities (bilateral trenchfoot, bilateral hearing loss, and tinnitus) and a combined VA rating that reached 90% after a 2010 increase.
- Geib applied for total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) in April 2007, claiming he became unable to work after operating as a self‑employed carpet consultant until 1989.
- The VA regional office ordered separate medical examinations in 2010: an audiology exam (concluding hearing/tinnitus would not prevent sedentary or loosely supervised work) and a trenchfoot exam (concluding trenchfoot precludes physical work but permits sedentary work).
- The regional office denied TDIU; the Board and the Veterans Court affirmed, finding the exams adequately described limiting effects and that the combined effect still permitted sedentary employment like Geib’s prior supervisory work.
- Geib appealed to the Federal Circuit arguing (1) the VA must obtain a single medical opinion addressing the aggregate effect of all service‑connected disabilities on employability, and (2) the examinations were inadequate and implicated due process.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed: the VA need not obtain a single combined medical opinion; the Board properly considered the combined effects based on the available exams; the court declined to revisit factual adequacy findings beyond its jurisdictional limits.
Issues
| Issue | Geib's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VA must obtain a single medical opinion addressing the aggregate effect of all service‑connected disabilities for TDIU adjudication | VA’s duty to assist requires a single combined medical opinion to evaluate aggregate employability | No statutory or regulatory requirement for a single combined medical opinion; Board may assess aggregate effect from available evidence | No; VA not required to obtain a single combined medical opinion; Board may evaluate combined effect using separate exams |
| Whether the two medical examinations were adequate to support denial of TDIU | Examinations failed to address combined impact and were therefore inadequate | Exams sufficiently described functional limitations and permitted Board to assess combined effect | Veterans Court’s finding of adequacy stands; Federal Circuit declined to revisit factual determinations (jurisdictional limits) |
| Whether denial based on those exams raised a due process (Fifth Amendment) issue reviewable here | Denial based on allegedly inadequate exams violated due process; constitutional review available | No free‑standing constitutional issue or contrary interpretation of statute/regulation for Federal Circuit review | No; Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction to entertain this constitutional claim here and found no such basis presented |
Key Cases Cited
- Willsey v. Peake, 535 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (standard for Federal Circuit review of Veterans Court legal determinations)
- Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (limits on Federal Circuit review of factual findings and Board’s weighing of evidence)
- In re Bailey, 182 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (scope of Federal Circuit review over constitutional issues from Veterans Court decisions)
- Young v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 461 (Vet. App. 2009) (Board must address aggregate effect of multiple disabilities to allow meaningful review)