Hudgens v. McDonald
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9040
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Michael Hudgens injured his right knee in service and underwent a partial knee replacement in 2003; he filed VA claims beginning in 2006 for degenerative joint disease, instability, and later for evaluation of his prosthetic knee.
- The VA Regional Office initially awarded 10% for degenerative joint disease and 10% (later reduced to 0%) for instability; Hudgens sought a 100% evaluation under Diagnostic Code (DC) 5055 for knee replacement.
- The RO denied application of DC 5055 to Hudgens’s partial knee replacement, treating DC 5055 as applying only to total knee replacements.
- The Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed the RO and did not address rating DC 5055 by analogy; Hudgens appealed to the Veterans Court.
- The Veterans Court held DC 5055 unambiguously covers only replacement of the whole knee joint (i.e., total replacements), vacated/ remanded other rating issues, and instructed the Board to consider rating by analogy; Chief Judge Kasold dissented.
- The Federal Circuit granted review, found VA’s current interpretation not entitled to Auer deference, applied the veteran‑favorable Brown v. Gardner presumption, and reversed—holding DC 5055 may cover partial knee replacements and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Hudgens' Argument | McDonald (VA) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DC 5055 (knee replacement prosthesis) covers partial knee replacements | DC 5055 covers prosthetic knee replacements generally, including partial replacements; ambiguities must be resolved in veteran’s favor | DC 5055 unambiguously applies only to replacement of the entire knee joint (total replacements) | Reversed: DC 5055 does not unambiguously exclude partial replacements; Auer deference to VA’s new interpretation is not warranted; ambiguities resolved for veteran, so partial replacements may be rated under DC 5055 |
| Whether Auer deference requires accepting VA’s new interpretation published during appeal | N/A (Hudgens argued Auer should not displace Gardner) | VA urged deference to its interpretation of its regulation | Court declined Auer deference because VA’s position conflicted with prior agency (Board) interpretations and appeared post hoc |
| Whether the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to hear this appeal despite other remanded issues | The DC 5055 question is a discrete, separable, final legal issue that will govern remand and could be mooted if not reviewed | Argued prudentially that appeal was nonfinal and should be dismissed (citing similar remand cases) | Court exercised jurisdiction under Williams v. Principi exception: issue separable and not inextricably intertwined with remanded claims |
| Need for Board to decide rating by analogy under §4.20 after ruling on DC 5055 | If DC 5055 applies directly, rating-by-analogy inquiry is unnecessary | VA had asked Board to consider analogy if DC 5055 did not apply | Held unnecessary: because DC 5055 can apply to partial replacements, Board need not rate by analogy on that ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (interpretive doubts in veterans’ benefits resolved in veteran’s favor)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (agency interpretations of their own regulations ordinarily entitled to deference)
- Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 132 S. Ct. 2156 (deference unwarranted when agency interpretation conflicts with prior positions or is post hoc)
- Williams v. Principi, 275 F.3d 1361 (exception to finality rule for discrete separable issues after Veterans Court remand)
- Myore v. Principi, 323 F.3d 1347 (limits on appellate review of Veterans Court remand orders)