Joseph C. Hillyard v. Eric K. Shinseki
2011 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 664
| Vet. App. | 2011Background
- Hillyard appeals a February 8, 2008 Board decision dismissing with prejudice his motion to revise a February 1987 Board decision denying VA benefits for a psychiatric disorder.
- The central question is whether a motion to revise a Board decision on one theory bars all future motions to revise the same claim, even with different theories.
- The Board held that once final, a motion to revise on a particular issue cannot be revisited; subsequent motions on that issue are dismissed with prejudice under § 20.1409(c).
- Hillyard had previously challenged the 1987 decision in July 2001; the Court later affirmed that decision as to the CUE issue.
- In January 2006 he filed another CUE motion; the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the motion because the issue had been finally adjudicated.
- The Court ultimately affirms the February 2008 Board decision, upholding the § 20.1409(c) bar on further CUE challenges to the same Board issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of § 20.1409(c) on multiple CUE motions | Hillyard argues a new theory may be raised in a subsequent motion. | Secretary argues one final Board decision on an issue precludes further CUE challenges on that issue. | § 20.1409(c) valid; bars repeated CUE challenges on same Board issue. |
| Andrews/Andre applicability to Board decisions | Hillyard claims Andrews allows new theories in later motions regardless of prior pleadings. | Secretary distinguishes, citing DAV and Board-level finality; Andrews does not control Board decisions. | DAV controls; Andrews does not apply to Board decisions. |
| Board jurisdiction to review the January 2006 motion | Hillyard contends the Board must review the new CUE theories. | Board lacked jurisdiction due to prior adjudication of the issue in July 2001. | Board properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; final adjudication bars review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrews v. Nicholson, 421 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (limits raising new theories in subsequent CUE motions)
- Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (original CUE motion does not foreclose later timely claims)
- Disabled American Veterans, 234 F.3d 682 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (upholds § 20.1409(c) finality and single-challenge principle)
- Robinson v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (each new CUE theory is independent for res judicata purposes)
- Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 310 (1992) (defines CUE standard and review framework for Board decisions)
- Roebuck v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 307 (2006) (theories vs. claims; distinction in context of CUE and claims)