774 F.3d 1380
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- Roberto Sanchez-Navarro served in the U.S. Army in Korea (1958–1959) and later filed (2005) a VA claim for service connection for PTSD based on three asserted in‑service stressors. There is no dispute he has PTSD; the dispute concerns whether his lay testimony sufficiently establishes the occurrence of in‑service stressors under VA rules.
- Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f), establishing PTSD service connection requires (1) a medical diagnosis under VA standards, (2) a medical nexus between current symptoms and an in‑service stressor, and (3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in‑service stressor occurred. The VA revised § 3.304(f)(3) to allow a veteran’s lay testimony alone to establish occurrence if (a) a VA psychiatrist/psychologist confirms the stressor supports a PTSD diagnosis and links symptoms to the stressor, (b) there is no clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and (c) the stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of service.
- The Board denied Sanchez‑Navarro’s claim, finding his lay testimony not credible; the Veterans Court affirmed, reasoning the evidence of in‑service stressors was insufficient and therefore the VA need not provide a VA psychiatrist/psychologist exam under the duty‑to‑assist statute (38 U.S.C. § 5103A).
- After the VA amended § 3.304(f), the Veterans Court vacated and remanded to let the Board consider whether the amended § 3.304(f)(3) applied; on remand the Board concluded § 3.304(f)(3) did not apply because Sanchez‑Navarro had only a therapist diagnosis (not a VA psychiatrist/psychologist) and his stressors lacked corroboration; the Veterans Court affirmed that decision.
- On appeal to the Federal Circuit, the majority held that the Board and Veterans Court applied the wrong standard: they treated the claim under the general § 3.304(f) credibility requirement rather than under the relaxed § 3.304(f)(3), and they failed to determine whether the proviso — that the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of service — is satisfied. The majority vacated and remanded, instructing the Veterans Court to decide the proviso; if satisfied, the VA must provide a VA psychiatrist/psychologist exam and then apply § 3.304(f)(3)’s remaining conditions.
- Judge Lourie dissented, arguing (1) the Veterans Court properly applied 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d) and concluded the statutory prerequisites for a VA exam were not met (a factual finding not reviewable here), and (2) the Veterans Court correctly found § 3.304(f)(3) inapplicable because its psychiatrist/psychologist confirmation requirement was not satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a VA psychiatric/psychological exam is required before applying the proviso in § 3.304(f)(3) | Sanchez‑Navarro: a VA exam is "necessary" under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d) to apply § 3.304(f)(3), including to determine the proviso | Government: the proviso (consistency with places/types/circumstances) must be satisfied first; only if proviso is met is a VA exam "necessary" | Majority: proviso is an adjudicative (historical) determination for VA adjudicators; if proviso is met, VA must provide the exam and then apply § 3.304(f)(3) conditions; vacated and remanded for that analysis |
| Proper standard for establishing occurrence of an in‑service stressor (general § 3.304(f) vs relaxed § 3.304(f)(3)) | Sanchez‑Navarro: § 3.304(f)(3) applies and relaxes the corroboration requirement when its conditions are met | Veterans Court/Board: applied the general § 3.304(f) credibility/corroboration standard and found lay testimony not credible, so § 3.304(f)(3) did not apply | Majority: Board and Veterans Court applied the wrong standard; on remand must determine whether § 3.304(f)(3)’s proviso is satisfied, then provide VA exam and apply § 3.304(f)(3) if applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (agency deference to interpretations of its own regulations)
- Joyner v. McDonald, 766 F.3d 1393 (Fed. Cir.) (limits on appellate review of factual determinations by Veterans Court)
- Cathedral Candle Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 400 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir.) (deference to agency interpretation offered in litigation)
- Reizenstein v. Shinseki, 583 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir.) (deference where agency interpretation reflects considered judgment)
- Gose v. U.S. Postal Serv., 451 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir.) (requirements for Auer deference to agency interpretations)