Genaro Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7027
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Vietnam veteran Vazquez-Claudio served 1968–1970; VA granted PTSD benefits with June 13, 1994 effective date.
- VA rated PTSD at 50% based on occupational/social impairment and listed symptoms (4.130).
- Board denied a 70% rating; found symptoms not to meet “most areas” impairment.
- Veterans Court affirmed the Board, focusing on frequency/severity/duration of symptoms under §4.126(a).
- Vazquez-Claudio appealed, arguing §4.130’s 70% criteria are symptom-driven and should consider impairment in most areas.
- Question presented: whether 70% rating is limited to listed symptoms and whether impairment must be shown in most areas under §4.130.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 70% rating is restricted to listed symptoms. | Vazquez-Claudio: impairment in ‘most areas’ allows use of any symptoms. | Shinseki: regulation ties rating to enumerated symptoms and their severity. | No; must rely on symptoms listed or of similar severity, frequency, duration. |
| Whether findings in ‘most areas’ are required for 70% rating. | Board/Veterans Court ignored ‘areas’ and relied only on symptoms. | Proper to assess symptoms and corresponding impairment across areas. | Impairment in most areas required; the Court’s misreading was harmless error and affirmation ensues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (proper interpretation of regulation is a legal question)
- Sellers v. Principi, 372 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (§§ 4.125–4.130 implementing mental-disorder regulations)
- Menegassi v. Shinseki, 638 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (harmless error standard in applying § 4.130)
- Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (regulatory framework interpretation)
- Lengerich v. Dep’t of Interior, 454 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (read disputed language in context of regulation)