Moffitt v. McDonald
776 F.3d 1359
Fed. Cir.2015Background
- Mrs. Moffitt, widow of World War II veteran Douglas Moffitt, challenges a Veterans Court decision denying enhanced DIC under 38 U.S.C. § 1311(a)(2).
- Mr. Moffitt served 1944–1946 and received a 60% combined disability rating with special monthly compensation for most of his life, with a brief 100% period in 1958.
- After Mr. Moffitt’s death, Mrs. Moffitt sought enhanced DIC under § 1311 and also pursued § 1151-based DIC arising from VA hospitalization-related death.
- Regulatory developments during the pendency of her claim—amendments to 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.1106 and 3.10(f)(3)—disallowed hypothetical entitlement for § 1311(a)(2); retroactivity was at issue on remand.
- The Veterans Court applied Princess Cruises factors to determine retroactivity, concluding the amendments could be applied retrospectively to bar a hypothetical-entitlement theory, affirming the Board’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended regulations barring hypothetical entitlement may be applied retroactively. | Moffitt argues retroactivity should not apply to 1999 claim filed before amendments. | Shinseki contends Princess Cruises factors justify retroactive application. | Retroactivity upheld; amendments applied. |
| Do Princess Cruises factors weigh in favor of retroactive application of § 20.1106 and § 3.10(f)(3)? | Moffitt claims factors weigh against retroactivity due to timing. | Secretary argues factors weigh in favor of retroactivity, as in Kernea. | All factors favor retroactive application. |
| Was Moffitt’s claim based on hypothetical entitlement properly barred under the amended rules? | Claim filed before amendments should be valid under existing law at filing. | Regulations disallow hypothetical entitlement and apply to pending claims. | Claim barred by amended regulations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kernea v. Shinseki, 724 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (retroactivity of § 3.10(f)(3) to bar hypothetical entitlement)
- NOVA II, 314 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (precludes hypothetical entitlement under § 1311/1318)
- Tarver v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (retroactivity considerations for regulatory changes in survivor benefits)
- Rodriguez v. Peake, 511 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (retroactivity and de novo review context for § 1311/1318)
- NOVA III, 476 F.3d 872 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (affirmed regulatory interpretations of entitlement to receive)
- Hix v. West, 12 Vet. App. 138 (1999) (hypothetical entitlement relevance in early § 1311 cases)
- Kernea v. Shinseki, 724 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (retroactivity of § 3.10(f)(3) to bar hypothetical entitlement (duplicate for emphasis))