Scott v. McDonald
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10231
| Fed. Cir. | 2015Background
- Curtis Scott, a Marine Corps reservist (active duty for training Jan–Jul 1972), tested positive for hepatitis C in 1999 and filed a VA claim in 2005 alleging service connection (primary theory: infection from air‑gun inoculations in service).
- The VA Regional Office (RO) denied service connection in 2005. Scott requested a Board hearing while incarcerated; the RO scheduled a March 14, 2008 hearing, which Scott did not attend because he remained incarcerated.
- Scott requested a rescheduled hearing (Mar. 23, 2008); the Board denied that request for lack of good cause and later denied service connection. Scott did not press the hearing‑issue in his initial Veterans Court appeal; the Veterans Court remanded for an inadequate medical exam without addressing the hearing claim.
- Subsequent RO and Board proceedings continued to deny service connection; Scott did not renew the hearing objection before the Board, but raised the hearing‑denial issue for the first time on later appeal to the Veterans Court (July 2013).
- The Veterans Court rejected the late‑raised hearing issue as improper piecemeal litigation; the Federal Circuit reviews legal determinations de novo and affirms the Veterans Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Scott may raise, at the Veterans Court stage, a procedural claim that the Board erred by denying a rescheduled hearing after Scott missed the scheduled hearing while incarcerated | Scott: Board erred by denying his request to reschedule because incarceration prevented attendance; the hearing denial should be considered despite timing | VA/Board: Scott failed to raise the procedural hearing issue before the Board or in his earlier Veterans Court appeal; allowing it now is piecemeal and contrary to exhaustion rules | Court: Issue‑exhaustion principles apply; Scott’s late procedural claim is forfeited—VA need not address procedural objections not timely raised despite liberal construction requirement; affirmed |
| Scope of the VA’s liberal‑construction obligation: does it require searching the record for unraised procedural objections? | Scott: VA’s non‑adversarial system and liberal construction should permit consideration of overlooked issues like denial of hearing | VA/Board: Liberal construction requires looking for closely related substantive claims, not to unearth and decide omitted procedural objections long after the fact | Court: Liberal construction requires the Board to consider closely related substantive claims and to sympathetically develop claims, but it does not require the Board or Veterans Court to search for or address procedural objections not raised by the veteran; institutional interests in timely adjudication outweigh the veteran’s interest here |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. L. A. Trucker Truck Lines, 344 U.S. 33 (importance of raising objections to agencies while they can correct them)
- Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (discussing when judicially imposed issue‑exhaustion is inappropriate in non‑adversarial agency proceedings)
- Maggitt v. West, 202 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir.) (balancing test for issue exhaustion in VA cases: weigh veteran’s interests against institutional interests)
- Robinson v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir.) (Board’s obligation to read veterans’ filings liberally and consider related claims)
- Belcher v. West, 214 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir.) (section 7292(a) imposes exhaustion requirement at Veterans Court level)