Prinkey v. Shinseki
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23241
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- Prinkey appeals a Veterans Court decision affirming BVA severance of service connection for diabetes type II and denial of total disability rating.
- Original service connection for diabetes was granted in 2003 as secondary to Agent Orange exposure, with 20% rating.
- Medical evidence in 2006 linked diabetes to pancreatic pancreatectomy (1994) from alcohol-related disease, not Agent Orange.
- RO severed service connection in 2006, effective December 1, 2006; NoD filed by Prinkey challenging severance.
- BVA and then Veterans Court held severance supported by clear and unmistakable error in the 2003 rating; Prinkey appealed to Federal Circuit.
- Court addresses jurisdictional limits and whether the April 2006 medical opinions were adequate to sustain severance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review medical opinions | Prinkey contends the court may review the adequacy of the April 2006 opinion. | Shinseki argues adequacy is a question of fact reviewable only by Veterans Court, not this court. | Adequacy of medical opinion is beyond our jurisdiction; review affirmed. |
| Sufficiency of the April 2006 endocrinologist's opinion | April 2006 opinion insufficient to show clear and unmistakable error in 2003 rating. | Opinion adequate and supported by record; not clearly erroneous. | Endocrinologist's opinion deemed adequate; supports severance. |
| Clear and unmistakable error standard under § 3.105(d) | BVA erred by weighing evidence; failed to apply § 3.105(d) properly. | BVA correctly applied § 3.105(d); no weighing of evidence at issue. | BVA properly applied the standard; no reversible error found. |
| Adequacy of the 2003 service-connection basis | June 2003 exam lacked pancreas resection info; relied on incomplete record. | 2003 exam supported service connection absent pancreas context; later records show error. | Court upheld that later record-keeping clarified error; 2003 basis did not control. |
| Constitutional due process | Prinkey asserts due process violations in severance process. | VA provided process; no rights violation. | Due process satisfied; claim merits no relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Belcher v. West, 214 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (limits review of sufficiency of evidence in veterans' appeals)
- Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc limit on review of Veterans Court decisions)
- Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (clear and unmistakable error standard in VA decisions)
- Bustos v. West, 179 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (clarifies standard for clear and unmistakable error analysis)