Hall v. Shinseki
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11497
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Hall enlisted in the Army on April 25, 1990 and immediately refused basic training, threatened self-harm or harm to others, showed a general phobia of people, and had a prior arrest for carrying a gun.
- An in-service psychiatric evaluation described an avoidant personality disorder; superior officers recommended termination and Hall was discharged on May 9, 1990.
- In August 2006, Hall filed for VA disability benefits, asserting PTSD from a military sexual trauma (MST) by a superior officer.
- The VA denied benefits for lack of a verifiable stressor; the Board affirmed, finding Hall’s sexual assault occurred but lacked credibility and corroboration.
- The Veterans Court affirmed the Board, rejecting Hall’s argument that § 3.304(f)(3) should apply to his MST claim.
- Hall appeals, arguing the Veterans Court erred in interpreting the scope of § 3.304(f)(3); the question is whether the stressor qualifies under that subsection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 3.304(f)(3) apply to Hall’s MST claim? | Hall contends § 3.304(f)(3) governs MST cases. | Shinseki argues § 3.304(f)(3) requires fear of hostile activity and involvement of enemy or terrorist acts. | § 3.304(f)(3) does not apply to MST claim. |
| Must a stressor under § 3.304(f)(3) be perpetrated by enemy or terrorist forces? | Hall asserts broad application of § 3.304(f)(3) to MST is proper. | The subsection applies only to events by enemy military or terrorists; civilian or domestic abuse is not within scope. | Stressors must involve enemy or terrorist actors; MST claim not covered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Akers v. Shinseki, 673 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (de novo review of questions of law; interpretation of VA PTSD stressor regulation)
- Acevedo v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 286 (Vet. App. 2012) (limits or clarifies application of § 3.304(f)(3) to stressors)