Norman Harris v. Shinseki, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 285

Harris, a veteran, seeks effective dates for skin disability claims from an earlier 1985 VA examination.
Harris filed a July 29, 2002 informal/formal claim seeking service-connected dermatitis and latex allergy.
The Board and Veterans Court held the 1985 examination did not constitute a claim, so July 29, 2002 became the earliest express intent.
The Veterans Court affirmed, then panel reconsideration left the single-judge decision as the court’s decision.
The court holds Moody, Szemraj, and Roberson require liberal reading of pro se filings and full development of claims.
The court vacates and remands to apply the proper standard for earliest applicable date and remands related issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the proper legal standard was applied to determine the earliest claim date	Harris argues the 1985 filing and evidence must be liberally construed.	The Veterans Court followed the Board and did not err in not treating 1985 as a claim.	Remand for proper legal standard; vacate and remand the earliest-date issue.
Duty to liberally construe pro se filings and develop claims	The VA must generously construe pro se filings to identify all potential claims.	Not specifically addressed; standard governance is as applied to this case.	Moody/Szemraj/Roberson require liberal construction; the court found error for not applying it.

Moody v. Principi, 360 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (pro se filings must be read liberally to discern claims)
Szemraj v. Principi, 357 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (veterans claims should be construed to uncover potential claims)
Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (VA must fully develop pro se veteran filings)
Robinson v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (direct appeals require sympathetic view of pro se filings)
Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (cited for liberal reading principle)