918 F.3d 922
Fed. Cir.2019Background
- Josephus Jones, a Marine Corps veteran, was diagnosed with PTSD by a VA psychiatrist in 2000 but filed a formal VA disability claim in April 2011; the RO awarded service connection effective April 13, 2011.
- Jones later sought an earlier effective date based on VA treatment records from 2000–2001 that he believed might contain an informal claim; the Board denied an earlier effective date, concluding the records did not show intent to file.
- The Veterans Court affirmed, but the record in that court lacked some VA treatment records from 2000–2001; the court nonetheless concluded the likelihood those records contained an informal claim was "extremely low."
- The Secretary acknowledged the Veterans Court record was incomplete and suggested the RO/Board had reviewed the missing records but failed to include them in the Veterans Court record.
- The Federal Circuit reviewed whether the Veterans Court applied the correct legal standard for the VA’s duty to assist in obtaining VA medical records and whether the lower court properly required a showing of relevance or a high likelihood that records would substantiate the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VA had duty to assist in obtaining VA treatment records from 2000–2001 | Jones: VA must assist to obtain VA records because he supplied information sufficient to locate them and they might show an informal claim | Secretary: Records unlikely to contain an informal claim; any error harmless because Jones admitted he did not file until 2011 and some records were considered | Court: Vacated and remanded—Veterans Court applied too strict a standard; VA must obtain complete VA treatment records when claimant provides locating info unless no reasonable possibility assistance would help |
| Whether VA may consider "relevance" when deciding to obtain VA medical records under its regulation | Jones: Relevance cannot bar obtaining VA medical records; VA must seek them when claimant provides locating info | Secretary: VA can decline if records seem irrelevant or unlikely to help | Court: Cited Sullivan—VA regulation requires obtaining VA medical records without relevance screening; Veterans Court erred in imposing relevance requirement |
| Whether missing records render error harmless | Jones: Missing records may be material; cannot assume contents | Secretary: Any error harmless given admissions and records reviewed | Court: Error not harmless; consistent with Moore—cannot assume omitted records would not aid claim |
| Whether an "informal claim" must be received by VA benefits section specifically | Jones: Argued broader receipt could qualify | Secretary: Argued must be received by benefits section | Court: Declined to decide factual question here; remanded to RO to determine whether any records constitute an informal claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.) (de novo review of Veterans Court legal determinations)
- Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786 (Fed. Cir.) (VA may not apply a relevance requirement before obtaining VA medical records under § 3.159(c)(3))
- Moore v. Shinseki, 555 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir.) (harmless-error doctrine cannot excuse failure to consider complete medical records)
- Moody v. Principi, 360 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir.) (factual findings about whether communications constitute informal claims are for the agency to decide)
- Charles v. Shinseki, 587 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir.) (waiver doctrine: evidence not presented to Veterans Court may be waived on appeal)