Spangler v. Shulkin
704 F. App'x 922
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Spangler served in the Marine Corps (Dec 1974–Dec 1975), was disciplined in service, and was discharged under honorable conditions after refusing surgery for an inguinal hernia.
- He first received inpatient psychiatric treatment at Eastern State Hospital in 1986 and was later diagnosed with mood disorder/possible depression; he reported psychiatric treatment beginning around age 18.
- Spangler repeatedly sought VA benefits for PTSD and other psychiatric conditions over decades; regional offices denied claims and declined to reopen prior denials mainly because service records did not corroborate in-service psychiatric events.
- He submitted private medical opinions diagnosing PTSD that relied on his lay reports of in-service stressors (including an alleged drill-instructor assault and related events).
- The Board found Spangler’s statements about in-service stressors not credible and concluded the private medical opinions were not probative; it denied service connection for PTSD and related disorders.
- The Veterans Court held the Board erred by failing to address 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5) and Menegassi v. Shinseki but concluded the error was harmless because the Board had considered and properly rejected the medical opinions as based on noncredible lay reports; this court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Spangler's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board erred by failing to apply Menegassi/§ 3.304(f)(5) (which permits medical evidence to corroborate stressors) | Board’s omission required remand because medical opinions could corroborate in-service stressors | Any error was harmless because Board considered and rejected the medical opinions on credibility grounds | Veterans Court correctly found Board erred to the extent it did not cite Menegassi/§ 3.304(f)(5), but the error was harmless; no remand required |
| Whether the Veterans Court should have remanded instead of affirming | Remand required to allow proper consideration of medical corroboration under Menegassi | No remand necessary because factual determinations about credibility and weight are not reviewable and the Board reached the correct result after weighing evidence | Court lacks jurisdiction to reweigh facts; affirmed Veterans Court’s harmless-error conclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Menegassi v. Shinseki, 638 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holds medical-opinion evidence may be used to corroborate occurrence of claimed in-service stressors)