1 F.4th 996
Fed. Cir.2021Background
- Joseph Snyder served for under 50 days in the U.S. Army in 1974 (Vietnam era) and was honorably discharged for a knee injury.
- Decades later Snyder was diagnosed with ALS and sought service‑connected disability benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1110.
- The VA had promulgated 38 C.F.R. § 3.318, creating a regulatory presumption of service connection for ALS if specified preconditions are met, including at least 90 continuous days of active service.
- Snyder did not meet the 90‑day requirement and challenged § 3.318(b)(3) as exceeding the Secretary’s authority and as arbitrary and capricious; he asked the Veterans Court to invalidate the 90‑day requirement.
- The Veterans Court rejected Snyder’s challenge; the Federal Circuit reviewed the legal issues de novo and affirmed the regulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3.318(b)(3)’s 90‑day minimum exceeds the Secretary’s statutory authority | Snyder: Regulation unlawfully modifies statutory scheme and veteran definition; conflicts with statutes (e.g., § 101(2), § 5303A) | Secretary: § 501(a) gives broad rulemaking power to set evidentiary rules and conditional presumptions; regulation fits within that authority and does not redefine "veteran" | Court: Rejected Snyder; § 501(a) authorizes evidentiary presumptions like § 3.318 and the 90‑day condition does not exceed authority |
| Whether the 90‑day requirement is arbitrary and capricious | Snyder: Weisskopf/IOM evidence shows increased ALS risk regardless of service length; 90 days is unreasonable and inconsistent with record | Secretary: Agency reasonably could adopt a minimum service period; Weisskopf measured years not short periods; 90 days is a reasonable, familiar threshold (used elsewhere) and was supported by the record and comments | Court: Held the choice was within the zone of reasonableness and not arbitrary or capricious |
| Whether the agency failed to consider relevant evidence or make a reasonable comparison to other presumptions | Snyder: Secretary should have treated ALS like other presumptions with no minimum service | Secretary: Other presumptions involve known exposures/locations; ALS causes unknown, so distinction is reasonable | Court: Agency reasonably distinguished ALS from exposure‑based presumptions and considered the record; no basis to set rule aside |
Key Cases Cited
- Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 141 S. Ct. 1150 (2021) (arbitrary‑and‑capricious review requires agency action to be reasonable and reasonably explained)
- Bazalo v. West, 150 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (de novo review of legal issues in veterans benefits cases)
- Routen v. West, 142 F.3d 1434 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (treats presumptions as measures affecting the nature and extent of required evidence)
- Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (discusses the statutory concept of "service connection")
- Hansen‑Sorenson v. Wilkie, 909 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (standards for setting aside VA regulations)
- Carpenter, Chartered v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 343 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (agency supportive comments can buttress reasonableness)
- McKinney v. McDonald, 796 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (upholding agency action that examined relevant data and articulated explanation)
- Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas–Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281 (1974) (court may uphold agency decision if its path can reasonably be discerned)
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947) (court cannot supply an agency's reasons for its action)