Johnson v. McDonald
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15097
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- Marvin O. Johnson appealed a Veterans Court decision denying extra-schedular referral for his service-connected disabilities.
- § 3.321(b)(1) governs extra-schedular referral when schedular evaluations are inadequate; dispute whether it applies to collective disability impact as opposed to individual disabilities.
- Johnson’s disabilities included rheumatic heart disease and knee degenerative changes; combined impact raised TDIU considerations.
- Board denied Johnson’s claim for extra-schedular referral based on the Board’s interpretation of § 3.321(b)(1) and TDIU without collective consideration.
- The Veterans Court en banc affirmed, finding § 3.321(b)(1) ambiguous and deferring to the VA VBA Manual interpretation.
- The Federal Circuit reversed, holding § 3.321(b)(1) unambiguously permits collective consideration and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3.321(b)(1) permits referral based on collective impact | Johnson argues the regulation contemplates the combined effect of disabilities. | The government argues § 3.321(b)(1) applies to individual disabilities only. | Regulation permits collective consideration; plain language supports aggregate impact. |
| Whether deference to VA interpretation is warranted | N/A (Johnson disputes reliance on VBA Manual if language unambiguous). | VA interpretation via VBA Manual should be given deference if reasonable. | No deference; language is unambiguous, so Auer/Seminole Rock deferential doctrine not applied. |
| Relation between 3.321(b)(1) and TDIU under 4.16 | Section 3.321(b)(1) fills gaps not covered by 4.16 when collective impact is insufficiently rated. | TDIU (4.16) already addresses total unemployability; § 3.321(b)(1) is duplicative if misread. | 3.321(b)(1) serves a gap-filling role distinct from 4.16; not duplicative. |
Key Cases Cited
- Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (U.S. 2000) (agency interpretation only controlling if regulation ambiguous)
- Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1945) (agency interpretations of own rules may be controlling)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1997) (deference for agency interpretations of regulations when ambiguous)
- Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 1326 (U.S. 2013) (reconsideration of Auer/seminal deference concerns)
- Talk America, Inc. v. Mich. Bell Tel. Co., 564 U.S. 50 (U.S. 2011) (concerns about deference enabling vague rulemaking)