Sucic v. McDonald, 640 F. App'x 901

Background

Jack Sucic, a Marine veteran, filed for PTSD in June 1992; the VA regional office denied the claim in December 1992 and the decision became final in December 1993.
In March 1993 Sucic submitted a VA Form 21-4138 stating he had been treated for a nervous condition since March 1985 and mentioned VA treatment in Columbia, Missouri.
In July 1995 the Board of Veterans’ Appeals referred Sucic’s PTSD issue to the regional office for “appropriate action,” requested certain records and told Sucic to await further notice; the regional office took no action and Sucic received no follow-up.
Sucic filed new evidence in January 2003; the VA treated the claim as reopened and awarded service connection for PTSD in 2008 with an effective date of January 2003.
Sucic sought an earlier effective date (back to 1992/1993). The Board and the Veterans Court concluded no pending claim existed between 1992 and 2003; this Court reversed, holding the Board’s 1995 referral left the claim pending and the VA’s inaction was procedural error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board’s 1995 referral created a pending, unadjudicated claim that required VA action	Sucic: the referral recognized an unadjudicated claim and triggered VA duties to investigate and adjudicate; he was told to wait, so he did not submit evidence	Gov: the referral did not create a pending claim; no new or material evidence was submitted before 2003, so no duty to act	Held: referral left the PTSD claim pending; VA’s failure to act was procedural error and claim remained unadjudicated
Whether 38 C.F.R. § 19.9 (1995) (remand rule) required the VA to follow specific procedures upon a Board referral	Sucic: § 19.9 and later amendments reflect Board practice that referrals require “appropriate consideration” by the AOJ	Gov: § 19.9 (1995) applies to remands only, not referrals; remands (not referrals) require specified actions	Held: the Court reasons that pre-2011 practice and later codification show referrals were intended to prompt initial adjudication by the regional office; VA’s claim that referrals required no action is incorrect
Whether informal claims can arise from any communication (thus March 1993 form could constitute an informal claim)	Sucic: Reeves and related precedent show an informal claim may be any communication showing intent to apply for benefits	Gov: argues a formal written claim was required to trigger pending-claim status	Held: the Court follows Reeves—an informal claim can be any communication demonstrating intent and identification of benefits sought; the March 1993 communication is relevant
Remedy and effective date consequence when VA commits procedural error by leaving a claim pending	Sucic: procedural error prevents finality; effective date may relate back to the earlier pending claim if ultimately granted	Gov: maintained decision was final absent new material evidence	Held: reversed and remanded for further findings on effective date; a pending, unadjudicated claim may support an earlier effective date if supported on remand

Key Cases Cited

Prenzler v. Derwinski, 928 F.2d 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (standard of review for Veterans Court legal determinations)
Reeves v. Shinseki, 682 F.3d 988 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (an informal claim may be any communication showing intent to apply for benefits)
Rodriguez v. West, 189 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (informal claim doctrine)
Sprinkle v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (veterans entitled to due process in VA proceedings)
Adams v. Shinseki, 568 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (a claim remains pending if VA fails to notify of denial or right to appeal)
Jones v. Shinseki, 619 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (effective date may relate back when an earlier claim was left pending)
Butler v. Principi, 244 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (presumption of regularity for officials’ actions)
Brown v. West, 203 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (regional office actions after Board referral can be required in first instance)