Shea v. Wilkie, 926 F.3d 1362

Kerry Shea, an Air Force veteran, was injured in a January 23, 2007 in-service truck accident and received treatment that included psychiatric diagnoses (anxiety, depression, memory problems).
On October 19, 2007 Shea filed a benefit application listing physical disabilities and identifying specific treatment facilities and records; she later asked VA to obtain those records and grant benefits.
Shea separately filed an express claim for PTSD on September 9, 2008; VA granted PTSD benefits effective that date and later awarded an effective date of July 7, 2008 based on a July 7, 2008 statement describing memory issues.
Shea argued she had an earlier (2007) effective date because her October 2007 filing, when read with referenced medical records, implicitly sought psychiatric-disability benefits (an informal claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 (2007)).
The Board and the Veterans Court concluded the October 2007 submission did not identify a psychiatric benefit sought and denied an earlier effective date; Shea appealed to the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the Veterans Court applied too restrictive a standard and must sympathetically read a pro se claimant's filings and the records they point to when determining whether an informal claim was made.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Shea's Oct. 2007 filings (which listed treating facilities and asked VA to obtain records) constitute an informal claim for psychiatric-disability benefits under 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a)	Shea: The filings, read liberally with the medical records they reference, reasonably identify psychiatric conditions and thus raise an informal claim dating to Oct. 2007	VA: The Oct. 2007 filings list only physical disabilities and do not identify psychiatric conditions or symptoms; medical records alone do not create a claim	Vacated Veterans Court decision; remanded to apply the correct, liberal standard: where filings point to specific records that contain an ascertainable diagnosis, an informal claim may be raised
Proper legal standard for evaluating pro se/informal VA claims under § 3.155(a)	Shea: § 3.155 should be applied liberally; VA must examine evidence the claim points to and resolve ambiguities in favor of the veteran	VA: § 3.155 requires identification of the benefit sought in the claim documents themselves; medical evidence cannot alone create a claim	Court: Precedent requires liberal, sympathetic reading of pro se filings; the Board must consider records the filings point to when identifying benefits sought

Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (VA must develop claims to their optimum and read pro se filings liberally)
Szemraj v. Principi, 357 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Roberson not limited to its facts; require sympathetic reading of pro se pleadings)
Moody v. Principi, 360 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (ambiguities in pro se filings should be resolved in favor of the veteran; VA must determine all potential claims raised by the evidence)
Harris v. Shinseki, 704 F.3d 946 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (reiterating VA's duty to fully develop pro se filings and give them a generous reading)
Robinson v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (when a direct-connection claim is raised, the record must be reviewed to determine scope, including secondary theories)
Comer v. Peake, 552 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (related claims may be raised by the record even when not specifically labeled)
Reeves v. Shinseki, 682 F.3d 988 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (elements for an informal claim under § 3.155)
Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (summary of precedent requiring review of all evidence to determine whether related service-connection claims are supported)