Reeves v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12098
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Reeves served in the Army (1942–1945) as a mortarman and was exposed to mortar noise and treated for malaria with quinine.
- He filed a 1981 claim for service-connected bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, supported by medical opinions and audiograms showing loss.
- 1983 Board denied the claim, finding the 1962 clinical finding too remote to service and noting record evidence of acoustic trauma.
- The 2004–2006 Board reopened the claim and awarded benefits based on new medical evidence linking hearing loss to service; Reeves sought an earlier effective date.
- Reeves died in 2011; Mrs. Reeves was substituted as appellant under Rule 43 and potential accrued-benefits substitution, with post-death proceedings continuing before the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substitution of the surviving spouse was proper | Reeves’s widow qualified as substitute and informal accrued-benefits claimant | Government argued lack of VA accrued-benefits claim prevented substitution | Substitution proper; widow may substitute on appeal. |
| Whether § 5121A applies to court proceedings | § 5121A supports substitution in court proceedings for accrued benefits | Breedlove limited court substitution, but § 5121A undermines that rationale | § 5121A undercuts earlier limits; substitution allowed in court. |
| Whether 1983 Board CUE for not applying § 1154(b) | Board should have applied combat presumption to establish in-service injury and nexus | Board could rely on evidence of acoustic trauma without § 1154(b) presumption | Reversed; 1983 decision misapplied § 1154(b) and CUE analysis proceeds. |
| Whether § 1154(b) requires nexus analysis or only in-service incurrence | § 1154(b) governs incurrence, not nexus; nexus analysis remains required. | ||
| Whether the Veterans Court correctly applied law on CUE and substitution | Veterans Court misapplied § 1154(b) and substitution standards | Court’s reasoning aligned with prior precedent | Remand to reevaluate with correct § 1154(b) application and substitution framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padgett v. Shinseki, 643 F.3d 950 (Fed.Cir.2011) (substitution and accrual benefits interplay governs survivors' rights)
- Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236 (Fed.Cir.1996) (standing and substitution when veteran dies during appeal)
- Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed.Cir.2004) (1154(b) does not establish nexus; it governs incurrence evidence)
- Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed.Cir.2009) (1154(b) shows incurrence, not nexus)