King v. Shinseki
431 Fed. Appx. 890
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- King served in the Army 1980–1983 and first sought VA service-connected benefits in 1992, which were denied by the RO and then by the Board in 1994, finalizing the adjudication.
- In May 2000, King sought to reopen his claim, submitting medical records from March 1995 and June 1997; the Board reopened and granted service connection with a 100% rating, effective May 15, 2000.
- King contends he is entitled to an earlier effective date based on alleged informal claims arising from his March 1995 and June 1997 VA hospital visits.
- The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s May 15, 2000 effective date, finding no evidence of intent to reopen before that date.
- King appeals, arguing the VA medical examiner notes could constitute informal claims, and that the Board/Veterans Court misapplied § 3.155(a) and § 3.157.
- This court has jurisdiction to review legal interpretations of VA regulations, but cannot reassess factual determinations or matters outside its statutory scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3.155(a) permits an informal claim via March 1995 and June 1997 notes. | King asserts these notes show intent to file an informal claim. | King argues the notes satisfy informal-claim criteria under § 3.155(a). | No reversible error; May 15, 2000 date stands. |
| Whether a medical examiner’s writings can satisfy the writing requirement of § 3.155(a). | Notes by VA doctors could constitute an informal claim. | Only specified persons may file or write to qualify under § 3.155(a). | Court declines to decide impact; result unchanged; no reversible error. |
| Whether § 3.157 could independently support an earlier informal claim based on medical records. | Medical reports could support an informal claim under § 3.157. | The court did not rely solely on § 3.157 and properly analyzed under § 3.155(a). | Rejects King’s § 3.157 argument. |
| Whether the Board’s consideration of March 1995 and June 1997 visits was properly reviewed as a factual issue. | The Board failed to consider those visits; the Veterans Court made improper factual findings. | The Board considered the reports; the Veterans Court’s factual determinations fall outside this court’s review. | Board presumed to have considered the records; no improper initial factual findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. West, 189 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (informal claim elements for § 3.155(a) written, intent, and benefits sought)
- Szemraj v. Principi, 357 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (reviewing judgments, not opinions; appellate limits on fact-finding)
- Hensley v. West, 212 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (veterans statutes align with general rule against initial factual review)
- Cook v. Principi, 353 F.3d 937 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (jurisdiction limits when legal theory reduces to law-fact application)
- Jones v. Shinseki, 619 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (effective-date when reopening is filed; regulatory interplay)
- Newhouse v. Nicholson, 497 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Board presumption of consideration of evidence in opinion)