Sprinkle v. Shinseki
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21588
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Jimmy Sprinkle served in the Army in 1973–1974; later diagnosed with mitral valve prolapse and a movement disorder and claimed VA exposure to high-dose Thorazine in service worsened/caused those conditions.
- VA Regional Office (RO) initially denied service connection; Board remanded for an additional VA medical examination (conducted Oct. 7, 2009) after receipt of a private physician’s letter.
- RO issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) summarizing the Oct. 7, 2009 exam opinion and notified Sprinkle he had 30 days to respond or could ask the RO to return the appeal to the Board earlier; Sprinkle asked immediate return and said he had no additional evidence to submit.
- After appeal certified to the Board, Sprinkle’s counsel requested VA records (including the Oct. 7 exam); the records were furnished to counsel on May 6, 2010 (about one month before the Board decision of June 3, 2010).
- Sprinkle argued the Board denied fair process by relying on the medical exam without giving him a 60-day opportunity to respond to the examiner’s report; the Veterans Court rejected this and affirmed the Board; the Federal Circuit affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the VA/Board denied fair process by relying on a medical exam report provided to Sprinkle less than 30 days before the Board decision | Sprinkle: Board violated "fair process" by failing to provide the actual examiner report with an adequate opportunity to respond (he seeks a 60‑day response period) | Government: RO summarized the exam in the SSOC, Sprinkle had opportunity to respond and had requested RO return to Board; the 60‑day rule (§20.903) applies only to advisory opinions obtained by the Board, not RO exams on remand | Held: No fair‑process violation; SSOC adequately summarized evidence, fair‑process doctrine not triggered, and §20.903 inapplicable |
| Whether the Thurber/"fair process" doctrine extends to evidence developed by the RO on remand when that evidence was summarized in a SSOC | Sprinkle: Thurber requires notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond to evidence the Board will rely on; that should include RO‑developed reports provided late | Government: Thurber applies where Board obtains evidence after the last SSOC; here the RO obtained and summarized the evidence in the SSOC, so doctrine not implicated | Held: Doctrine applies only when Board obtains evidence subsequent to the most recent SSOC; here evidence was developed by RO and summarized in the SSOC, so doctrine not implicated |
| Whether 38 C.F.R. § 20.903(a) entitles a claimant to a 60‑day response period after an examiner's report is provided | Sprinkle: §20.903(a) requires notice, copy, and 60 days to respond to advisory medical opinions relied on by the Board | Government: §20.903(a) applies only to advisory opinions obtained directly by the Board under §20.901, not to RO examinations on remand | Held: §20.903(a) does not apply here because the exam was obtained by the RO on remand, not by the Board under §20.901 |
| Whether any agency error was prejudicial (harmless‑error analysis) | Sprinkle: Late receipt of the report prejudiced his ability to respond | Government: No prejudice — Sprinkle instructed RO to return case to Board and said he had no additional evidence; he had months from SSOC to Board decision; any failure was harmless | Held: No prejudice shown; any timing issue was harmless under Gambill/Sanders principles |
Key Cases Cited
- Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 119 (Vet.App. 1993) (announcing "fair process" requirement that claimant receive notice of evidence obtained after the last Statement/Supplemental Statement of the Case and reasonable opportunity to respond)
- Young v. Shinseki, 22 Vet.App. 461 (Vet.App. 2009) (VA violated fair process by failing to furnish a requested medical exam report before the Board relied on it)
- Gambill v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (discussing fair‑process issues and applying harmless‑error analysis to Veterans benefits adjudication)
- Cushman v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Due Process Clause applies to VA benefit adjudications)
- Gonzales v. United States, 348 U.S. 407 (U.S. 1955) (procedural protections may be implicit in statutes and regulations as a matter of fair play)