25 Vet. App. 178
Vet. App.2012Background
- Burden, widow of Vietnam veteran Louis E. Burden, sought DIC as surviving spouse after his death in 2004.
- Louis Burden and Michele Burden ceremonially married in April 2004, shortly before his death in August 2004.
- VA denied DIC claiming they were not married for at least one year before death, per 38 U.S.C. §1102.
- Burden submitted a Statement of Marital Relationship and lay statements alleging a common-law marriage under Alabama law.
- Board and RO applied Alabama’s four-element common-law test and required clear and convincing proof per Alabama law.
- Court held that §103(c) requires applying state law (including proof standards) and that Alabama’s clear-and-convincing standard governs whether a common-law marriage existed for VA purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Alabama's clear and convincing proof required? | Burden argues for benefit of the doubt under §5107(b). | .Secretary argues §103(c) governs and requires Alabama's standard. | Alabama's clear and convincing proof applies. |
| Did the Board correctly apply Alabama law to determine common-law marriage and its duration? | Burden contends the Board misapplied Downs and ignored the totality of evidence. | Secretary argues proper application of state-law elements and proof standard. | Board correctly applied Alabama law; evidence not clear and convincing. |
| Is the Board's reasons or bases adequate and was notice adequate? | Burden claims inadequate discussion of lay evidence and inadequate notice. | Secretary contends Board adequately weighed evidence and notice was sufficient. | Board's reasons and notice found adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49 (1990) (benefit of the doubt vs. clear standard considerations in proof)
- Downs v. Newman, 500 So.2d 1062 (Ala. 1986) (documentary single-status evidence does not defeat totality of evidence)
- Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 498 (1995) (clarity of standard-of-proof determinations in veterans' appeals)
- Creel v. Creel, 763 So.2d 943 (Ala. 2000) (elements of Alabama common-law marriage)
- Goodman v. McMillan, 61 So.2d 55 (Ala. 1952) (clear-and-convincing proof standard for common-law marriage in Alabama)
- United States v. Romani, 523 U.S. 517 (1998) (specific statute governs when a later statute trumping a general one applies)
- Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Co-op., Inc., 356 U.S. 525 (1958) (Erie factors in conflict of state and federal laws)
- Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965) (Erie twin aims and outcome-determinative considerations)
- Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996) (outcome-determinative test in Erie contextual framework)
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945) (outcome-determinative test for substantive vs procedural law)