Sudranski v. Shulkin
683 F. App'x 961
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Richard L. Sudranski is a veteran who sought VA disability benefits for psychiatric disorders beginning in 1977; the Board granted a 50% rating for agitated depression with paranoid ideation in 1986.
- The Board referred his claim for total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) to the VA in 1986; the Board later increased his rating to 100% with a January 1986 effective date in 1990 but denied earlier TDIU relief.
- Sudranski filed multiple motions to revise the 1986 Board decision alleging clear and unmistakable error (CUE); prior motions were denied and this appeal arises from his third CUE motion filed in 2011.
- The Board denied the 2011 motion, finding Sudranski failed to identify missing facts or show legal misapplication in the 1986 decision, and rejected his claim that referral of the TDIU issue was erroneous.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed, noting it might have weighed evidence differently but that the Board’s 1986 decision did not contain CUE; Sudranski appealed to the Federal Circuit.
- The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the arguments presented were challenges to factual determinations or application of law to facts, not statutory or regulatory interpretation or valid constitutional questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1986 Board decision contained a clear and unmistakable error (CUE) warranting revision | Sudranski: 1986 decision omitted/failed to rate psychiatric symptoms correctly, misapplied diagnostic code, and misweighed evidence — these errors made outcome incorrect | Government: Plaintiff raises factual disputes and evidentiary reweighing that do not present a reviewable legal question | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — CUE claims here are factual or law-applied-to-fact and not reviewable under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) |
| Whether the Board’s referral of the TDIU issue to the VA in 1986 was legally erroneous | Sudranski: Referral was improper and constituted legal error | Government: Referral was proper; earlier Federal Circuit panel already rejected this argument | Held: No reversible error; argument previously rejected and is not a basis for relief |
| Whether a 1982 Board decision precludes reclassification of Sudranski’s psychiatric condition in 1986 (res judicata) | Sudranski: 1982 decision described his psychiatric disability and should control later classification | Government: 1982 decision addressed service connection, not the nature/classification; res judicata applies only to the identical claim | Held: Res judicata inapplicable because the 1982 decision did not decide the same issue |
| Whether the appeal raises a legitimate constitutional or legal question the Federal Circuit may review | Sudranski: Asserts constitutional violations by Board and Veterans Court (generally asserted without support) | Government: No constitutional question was actually decided by Board or Veterans Court; unsupported constitutional labels do not convert factual disputes into jurisdictional issues | Held: No legitimate constitutional question presented; court lacks jurisdiction to consider the factual/apply-law disputes |
Key Cases Cited
- Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (non-frivolous legal question requirement for Federal Circuit review of Veterans Court decisions)
- Willsey v. Peake, 535 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (standard for establishing clear and unmistakable error requires showing errors based on record and law that existed at prior adjudication)
- Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016) (res judicata applies only when a prior decision decided the very same claim)
- Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (unsupported constitutional characterizations do not create jurisdiction)
- Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (definition and context for service-connected disability)