Goodman v. Shulkin
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17983
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Veteran Prezell Goodman served 1972–1992 including Persian Gulf War theater; no rheumatoid arthritis (RA) findings at separation or in-service exams.
- In 2007 he sought VA treatment for hand stiffness and bilateral knee pain and filed for service connection for RA; regional office and Board denied service connection.
- On appeal the parties jointly moved to remand because the Board failed to consider whether RA might qualify as a medically unexplained chronic multi‑symptom illness (MUCMI) under 38 C.F.R. § 3.317.
- On remand the VA obtained a 2014 independent medical opinion from a rheumatology director concluding it was "less likely than not" that Goodman’s RA is a MUCMI or related to in‑service exposures; Board found that opinion highly probative and denied presumptive MUCMI service connection.
- Veterans Court affirmed, holding (1) the Board permissibly relied on the medical opinion and (2) § 3.317 allows medical experts and adjudicators to evaluate on a case‑by‑case basis whether a disease is a MUCMI; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board permissibly relied on the 2014 medical opinion | Goodman: opinion failed to properly assess his RA and its MUCMI status | VA: Board may weigh independent medical opinions and assign probative value | Held: Board properly relied on and weighed the 2014 opinion; factual sufficiency is not reviewable here |
| Who may determine whether a disease qualifies as a MUCMI under § 3.317 | Goodman: allowing individual medical examiners to rule creates precedent and improperly delegates rulemaking | VA: § 3.317 and VA guidance permit medical opinions and adjudicators to make case‑by‑case determinations | Held: § 3.317 and the October 2010 amendment permit medical examiners to render opinions and adjudicators to decide MUCMI status in individual claims |
| Whether rheumatoid arthritis is categorically excluded from MUCMI coverage | Goodman: medical uncertainty could support MUCMI classification in his case | VA: RA has at least partially explained etiology/pathophysiology and therefore is not a MUCMI here | Held: Court did not decide RA categorically excluded for all cases; here the record and medical opinion supported denial |
| Availability of relief for previously or future denied claimants | Goodman: concerned the decision forecloses others seeking § 3.317 benefits | VA: claimants can reopen with new and material evidence; future claimants may present updated medical evidence | Held: Decision does not preclude reopening or future claims if new material evidence or different medical opinions arise |
Key Cases Cited
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (agency interpretation of its own regulation entitled to deference)
- Cushman v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290 (legal determinations of Veterans Court reviewed de novo)
- Meeks v. West, 216 F.3d 1363 (interpretation of regulation begins with plain language and statutory context)
- Roberto v. Dep’t of Navy, 440 F.3d 1341 (rules of statutory construction apply to agency regulations)
- Prinkey v. Shinseki, 735 F.3d 1375 (sufficiency of a medical opinion is a factual determination)