Patrick v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25543
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- Mrs. Patrick appeals a Veterans Court EAJA denial after prior appeals regarding her dependency and indemnity compensation claim.
- Husband James Patrick served 1958–1959; preexisting rheumatic heart disease was alleged, with later in-service findings of heart abnormalities.
- 1985: Patrick died of an acute myocardial infarction; Mrs. Patrick sought DIC benefits nunc pro tunc.
- 1986 VA board denied, asserting preexisting condition and no aggravation; 1992 reopened claim denied; 1999 board denial affirmed by Veterans Court (CUE context).
- Court remanded to evaluate whether the government could rebut §1111’s presumption of soundness with clear and unmistakable evidence of no aggravation; on remand, VA conceded the issue and eventually granted DIC.
- EAJA proceedings: Veterans Court denied EAJA and reconsidered; Mrs. Patrick challenged the denial as not substantially justified in light of the totality of the circumstances; we reverse and remand for a holistic assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government’s position was substantially justified | Patrick argues VA’s interpretation of §1111 was unsupported by statute/history | Patrick counters earlier precedent supported VA position | Yes, reversed; remanded for totality-of-circumstances review |
| Whether government could rebut the presumption of soundness under §1111 without clear and unmistakable evidence of no aggravation | Patrick contends §1111 requires clear and unmistakable evidence of non-aggravation | VA relied on outdated interpretation consistent with prior precedent | Yes, the interpretation was not substantially justified; remand for full analysis |
| Whether prior VA and Court precedent supported retroactive application of §1111 interpretation in CUE context | Patrick argues retroactivity should apply, aligning with our prior remand | Government contends retroactivity should be analyzed per Jordan framework | Reversed; remanded for complete totality-of-circumstances analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (interpreting §1111 and the presumption of soundness; requires clear and unmistakable evidence of non-aggravation)
- Patrick v. Nicholson, 2002 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 979 (Vet. App. 2002) (referred to for sequence of decisions; not official reporter)
- Patrick v. Principi, No. 99-916, 2002 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 979 (Vet. App. 2002) (earlier denial and CUE context; not official reporter)
- Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401 (U.S. 2004) (EAJA purpose to deter unjustified government action; prevailing party entitled to fees absent substantial justification)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988) (substantial justification standard—reasonable basis in law and fact)
- White v. Nicholson, 412 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (considers totality of circumstances in EAJA assessment)
- Owen v. United States, 861 F.2d 1273 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (en banc consideration of substantial justification factors)
- Essex Electric Engineers, Inc. v. United States, 757 F.2d 247 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (rejects single-factor approach to substantial justification)
- Halverson v. Slater, 206 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (not substantially justified when contrary to plain meaning and history)