Kays v. Snyder
16-1314
| Fed. Cir. | Jan 25, 2017Background
- Charles L. Kays, Navy veteran (1972–1976), filed for PTSD benefits alleging two non-combat in-service stressors: a stabbing incident and getting lost/isolated while assisting recovery of a downed civilian helicopter.
- Kays submitted personal statements, testimony, a former spouse’s statement, and a contemporaneous newspaper article about the helicopter crash (which did not mention civilian divers).
- The VA Regional Office denied service connection; the Board remanded once, later denied the claim for lack of credible supporting evidence that the claimed stressors occurred.
- The Board found Kays’s stabbing and helicopter-rescue accounts unsupported, inconsistent, and contradicted by record evidence; it questioned his credibility and the lack of corroboration.
- Kays appealed to the Veterans Court arguing the Veterans Court should review de novo whether the veteran met the evidentiary burden of showing the in-service stressor; the Veterans Court applied the clearly erroneous standard and affirmed the Board.
- The Federal Circuit reviewed whether the credible-supporting-evidence requirement under 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) is a factual finding (clearly erroneous review) or a legal/evidentiary burden (de novo review), and whether the regulation requires evidence that the stressor occurred to the veteran.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kays) | Defendant's Argument (VA/Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review for Board finding that claimed in-service stressor lacked credible supporting evidence | Veterans Court should review de novo because the requirement is an evidentiary burden | Finding is factual — Board weighs evidence and credibility; Veterans Court reviews for clear error | Clearly erroneous standard applies; Board’s factual determinations reviewed for clear error |
| Meaning of "credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred" | Only proof the stressor occurred generally (e.g., helicopter crash) is required; nexus ensured by current PTSD diagnosis | Must show credible evidence that the claimed stressor occurred to the veteran as alleged | Regulation requires credible evidence that the claimed stressor occurred to the veteran, not merely that an event occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- Blubaugh v. McDonald, 773 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (standards of review for statutory/regulatory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (when veteran must demonstrate an event, showing it is "at least as likely as not" is required and Board must evaluate weight of evidence)
- Lennox v. Principi, 353 F.3d 941 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Veterans Court reviews Board factual findings under clearly erroneous standard unless Board interprets law or announces rule)
- Sizemore v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 264 (Vet. App. 2004) (corroborative evidence sufficiency for in-service stressors is a factual question reviewed for clear error)