National Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs
669 F.3d 1340
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Petitioners challenge VA rule amending 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) regarding PTSD service connection.
- Rule allows establishing PTSD without corroborating stressor evidence if VA psychologist confirms the stressor supports diagnosis and is consistent with service.
- Rule distinguishes between VA-associated practitioners and private practitioners; requires forensic determination by VA-affiliated examiner.
- Rule defines fear of hostile activity as causing a psychological/psycho-physiological state of fear, helplessness, or horror.
- Petitioners argue the rule conflicts with statutes, overbroad, or arbitrary and capricious; VA defends as permissible statutory interpretation.
- Court applies Chevron step-one/directive and APA arbitrary-and-capricious review; petitions denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the rule conflicts with governing statutes | Petitioners argue conflict with §1154(a), §5125, §5107(b) | Secretary contends no direct conflict; rule permissible | No direct conflict; rule permissible |
| DSM-IV compatibility and scope of criteria | Petitioners say terms psychological/physiological exceed DSM-IV A criteria | Secretary says merger with B criteria; not undermining DSM-IV | No inconsistency with DSM-IV; regulation acceptable |
| Whether the rule is arbitrary or capricious | Petitioners challenge the rationale distinguishing VA vs private practitioners | Secretary offers rational basis for expertise/consistency | Rule is not arbitrary or capricious; rational basis supported |
| Chevron/APA review framework | Petitioners contend rule exceeds agency’s authority | Court should defer to Secretary’s reasonable construction | Rule supported under Chevron and APA review; upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency deference for reasonable interpretations of statutes)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) (administrative-law agency interpretations subject to deferential review)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard; rational basis review for agency rulemaking)
- Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (2003) (generalization vs. precision in rulemaking; deference to agency judgments)
- Ass’n of Pub.-Safety Communications Officials-Int’l, Inc. v. FCC, 76 F.3d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (reasoned analysis supports agency rulemaking)
- Ass’n of Fisheries of Maine, Inc. v. Daley, 127 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 1997) ( courts uphold general applicability of agency rules)