Kay M. Bowers v. Eric K. Shinseki
26 Vet. App. 201
Vet. App.2013Background
- Bowers widow appeals a September 28, 2010 Board decision denying ALS benefits for her husband and denying related secondary disabilities.
- The decision addressed applicability of 38 C.F.R. § 3.318 ALS presumption.
- Mr. Bowers served in the South Carolina Army National Guard (1972–1978) with active duty for training Aug 1972–Feb 1973 (>90 days).
- ALS diagnosed July 2009; VA denied benefits for ALS in November 2009; Board denied presumptive and direct service-connection claims.
- Court affirms Board, finding no clear error in veteran-status determination and no basis to apply the ALS presumption; constitutional arguments deemed underdeveloped; other disability claims not on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bowers met veteran status for §3.318 presumption | Bowers argues he was eligible based on 90+ days of active service. | Secretary contends active duty for training does not meet active service unless disabled during that period. | Not a veteran; presumption not applicable. |
| Whether Biggins controls ALS presumption for this case | Biggins should distinguish ALS presumption from MS presumption. | Biggins applies; veteran status is a prerequisite for presumptions. | Biggins controls; presumption not available here. |
| Constitutionality of § 3.318 as applied to Bowers | § 3.318 violates equal protection/due process by excluding TR service. | regulation within Congress’ framework; no viable constitutional flaw. | Argument underdeveloped; no consideration due. |
| Whether secondary disability claims were properly handled | Seeks secondary entitlement based on ALS. | Secondary claims not adjudicated; not available if primary not established; abandoned. | Abandoned on appeal; not addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Biggins v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 474 (1991) (presumption requires veteran status; TR service not eligible for MS presumption)
- Acciola v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 320 (2008) (presumptions not applicable without veteran status; MS/ALS context)
- Smith v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 40 (2010) (presumptions of service connection and veteran status prerequisites)
- Smith v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 227 (2000) (de novo review vs. factual findings; entitlement considerations)
- Haas v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Secretary's discretion in defining service connection frameworks)