Martinez v. McDonough
21-1029
Fed. Cir.Oct 20, 2021Background
- Johnny R. Martinez served in the U.S. Army (Feb 1977–Feb 1980) and filed three VA disability claims: Feb 1980, Sept 2008 (adjudicated 2009), and Feb 2012 (adjudicated Oct 2012).
- On separation he submitted DA Form 664 and service medical records (SMRs); the RO denied service connection for a right wrist condition in March 1980.
- In 2009 the RO denied most claims but assigned a 0% rating for hearing loss effective Sept 23, 2008; in 2012 the RO granted bilateral tinnitus at 10% effective Feb 29, 2012 and continued 0% for hearing loss.
- Martinez sought to reopen and alleged clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in the 1980, 2009, and 2012 rating decisions; the Board found no CUE and the Veterans Court affirmed in part, remanding limited issues.
- The Veterans Court held DA Form 664 put VA on notice of additional disabilities but found any 1980 adjudicatory error nonprejudicial because identical claims were later denied in 2009; it remanded the hearing-loss effective date question.
- On appeal to the Federal Circuit, the court held the dispute was principally law-to-fact (factual application of law) and therefore outside its jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CUE in 1980 RO denial (right wrist) and failure to adjudicate informal claims | DA Form 664 + SMRs constituted an informal claim for multiple conditions; denial was CUE | Wrist not presumptively chronic; SMRs did not show dislocation/residuals; informal claims not reasonably raised | Veterans Court: no CUE for wrist; DA664 did raise other claims but any error was nonprejudicial because later adjudicated in 2009; Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction over factual challenges |
| CUE in 2009 RO denials (other conditions and hearing loss) | 2009 denials were CUE; hearing-loss effective date should be earlier | Conditions not subject to presumptive service connection; Martinez failed to identify specific CUE arguments; relied-on records not in the record at time of decision | Veterans Court upheld no CUE for most claims; remanded to address hearing-loss effective date question |
| CUE in 2012 RO tinnitus effective date (argued back to 1980) | Tinnitus effective date should be Feb 1980 because DA664/SMRs constituted an informal claim | RO’s 2009 denial of identical claims forecloses finding CUE for earlier effective date | Veterans Court affirmed Board: no CUE; Federal Circuit cannot reweigh factual findings |
| Federal Circuit jurisdiction to review these CUE/law-to-fact claims | Martinez contends statutory and constitutional issues permit review | Disputes are law-to-fact; no viable constitutional claim; remanded issues are nonfinal | Federal Circuit: lacks jurisdiction to review factual determinations here; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Peake, 521 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (a later final denial of an identical claim renders an earlier identical pending claim unsuccessful)
- Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (limits on Federal Circuit jurisdiction over Veterans Court decisions)
- Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Federal Circuit generally may not review factual determinations or law-applied-to-fact issues from the Veterans Court)