682 F. App'x 906
Fed. Cir.2017Background
- Michael Loyd, Vietnam Army veteran, filed a PTSD-related VA disability claim dated June 6, 2002; VA requested additional information about specific stressors and unit/locations but Loyd did not respond.
- VA denied the 2002 claim for lack of a demonstrated in-service stressor and absence of a PTSD diagnosis; Loyd did not appeal that denial.
- Loyd filed motions to reopen in 2006 and 2008; he submitted a June 6, 2006 PTSD diagnosis and later a PTSD questionnaire (2008) identifying presence at Bien Hoa, enabling VA to locate unit records showing a January 31, 1968 enemy attack.
- VA awarded PTSD benefits in 2009, assigning an effective date tied to the reopening/diagnosis (initially July 2, 2008, later changed to June 6, 2006), not to the 2002 claim date; Board and Veterans Court denied Loyd’s request for a 2002 effective date.
- Loyd argued 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) (2002) entitled him to an effective date back to his original 2002 claim because the new, material evidence that led to the favorable decision came from service department records.
- The Veterans Court applied the 2006 version of § 3.156(c) (which contains a limiting paragraph (c)(2) about claimant failure to provide identifying information); the government conceded on appeal that the Veterans Court should have applied the 2002 version.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which version of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) governs? | 2002 version applies to Loyd’s 2002 claim and reopening. | VA earlier argued 2006 version applied; later conceded and abandoned that position on appeal. | Court vacated Veterans Court decision and remanded for application of the 2002 regulation. |
| Does § 3.156(c)(2002) entitle Loyd to an effective date of June 6, 2002 because new evidence consisted of service department records? | Yes: newly obtained service records that produced the favorable decision trigger retroactive effective date to original claim under § 3.156(c)(2002). | Gov't suggested statutory provisions and other regs affect the outcome and that effective date could be the diagnosis date. | Court directed Veterans Court to analyze the 2002 regulation (did not decide merits) and remanded for further consideration. |
| Does claimant’s failure to respond to VA’s 2002 request for info preclude retroactive benefit under § 3.156(c)(2002)? | Loyd: failure to respond should not automatically bar relief under the 2002 rule. | VA/VCourt relied on 2006 § 3.156(c)(2) language that limits retroactivity when claimant failed to provide sufficient info. | Court held the Veterans Court erred by applying the 2006 limiting language; remand required to analyze under 2002 rule and related authorities. |
| Effect of date of PTSD diagnosis (June 6, 2006) on effective date? | Loyd urged retroactivity to 2002 regardless of diagnosis date because service records were newly obtained. | Gov't argued effective date might be the date of the diagnosis. | Court declined to address diagnosis-date issue in the first instance and left it for the Veterans Court on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Willsey v. Peake, 535 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (court may review Veterans Court legal errors in standard application)
- Sears v. Principi, 349 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (statute leaves effective-date choice for reopened claims to agency discretion; ordinary reopened claims have effective date no earlier than reopening)