Sellers v. Wilkie
965 F.3d 1328
| Fed. Cir. | 2020Background:
- Robert M. Sellers, Navy (1964–1968) and Army (1981–1996) veteran, suffers from major depressive disorder (MDD).
- Sellers filed a formal VA claim on March 11, 1996 (Form 21-526) listing specific physical injuries and wrote in block 40: “Request s/c for disabilities occurring during active duty service.”
- Sellers later filed an informal claim on September 18, 2009, for a psychiatric disability (claimed as PTSD); VA subsequently granted service connection for MDD effective September 18, 2009.
- Sellers sought an earlier effective date (March 11, 1996) for MDD, arguing his 1996 form plus VA possession of service medical records showing psychiatric treatment/diagnosis sufficed to constitute a claim for MDD.
- The Veterans Court held that a general statement plus VA possession of service records containing a reasonably identifiable in‑service psychiatric diagnosis could cure an otherwise nonspecific formal claim (the “reasonably identifiable” test) and remanded for factual finding.
- The Federal Circuit reversed: it held a formal claim must identify the sickness, disease, or injury (at least at a high level of generality); Sellers’ 1996 form failed that requirement, so he is not entitled to the 1996 effective date.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a formal VA claim that does not identify a condition can be cured by VA possession of medical records showing that condition | Sellers: a general request for "disabilities occurring during active duty" plus VA’s possession of service records showing psychiatric treatment/diagnosis should be read sympathetically as a claim for MDD | Secretary: a formal claim must identify the condition sought (even at a high level); VA records do not substitute for claimant identification | Held for Secretary: formal claim must identify the sickness/disease/injury (high‑level suffices); Sellers’ 1996 form fails this test |
| Interaction between claim‑identification requirement and VA duty to assist | Sellers: completing a prescribed form for one condition triggers VA’s duty to search and develop all claims the record supports | Secretary: VA’s duty to assist is triggered only after a legally sufficient claim identifies the condition to be developed | Held for Secretary: identification requirement is necessary to trigger and focus the duty to assist |
| Reviewability of non‑final Veterans Court decision | Sellers: (implicit) contest of remand may not be reviewable | Secretary: challenged legal rule meets Williams v. Principi criteria for review of non‑final Veterans Court decisions | Held: Federal Circuit has jurisdiction under Williams; legal rule created by Veterans Court is reviewable and reversible |
Key Cases Cited
- Sellers v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 157 (2018) (Veterans Court decision adopting "reasonably identifiable" test and remanding)
- Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79 (2009) (held a request for "all disabilities of record" is insufficient to identify unrelated condition)
- Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009) (claims may be for symptoms regardless of labels; context for claim reading)
- Veterans Justice Group, LLC v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 818 F.3d 1336 (2016) (upheld VA regulations requiring identification of the benefit and description of symptoms/conditions)
- Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378 (2001) (sympathetic reading of claim facts can support claims not explicitly named)
- Shea v. Wilkie, 926 F.3d 1362 (2019) (claim lacking explicit diagnosis was sufficient where claim pointed to specific medical records noting the psychiatric condition)
- Epps v. Gober, 126 F.3d 1464 (1997) (no duty to assist absent a legally sufficient claim)
- Mansfield v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1312 (2008) (VA has authority to prescribe claim forms and requirements)