Sullivan v. McDonald
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4290
Fed. Cir.2016Background
- Sullivan, a veteran, filed for service-connected benefits for neck/back injuries; initial claim denied on lack of medical evidence establishing service connection.
- He testified he sought treatment at the Asheville VA in 1984 but doctors found nothing; ten years later he submitted new evidence and sought to reopen his claim.
- The Board denied reopening as the new evidence was not material and found VA satisfied its duty to assist in obtaining identified/available evidence.
- On appeal to the Veterans Court, Sullivan first argued VA failed to obtain his Asheville VA medical records; the Veterans Court held VA’s duty to secure records extends only to potentially relevant records and affirmed.
- On further appeal to this court, the panel reviewed whether 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(3) requires relevance for VA medical records and whether the Veterans Court improperly made factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(3) conditions VA’s duty to obtain VA medical records on their relevance | Sullivan: regulation expands VA’s duty beyond the statute and requires VA to obtain sufficiently identified VA medical records regardless of relevance | Government: relevance requirement applies (and the argument was waived before Veterans Court); underlying statute imposes relevancy | Court: § 3.159(c)(3) by its plain text requires VA to assist in obtaining identified VA medical records without a relevancy limitation; statute permits VA to provide broader assistance under § 5103A(g) |
| Whether Veterans Court engaged in improper factfinding regarding relevance of Asheville records | Sullivan: Veterans Court made a factual finding about records’ relevance that Board never made | Government: Board presumed to have considered evidence; Veterans Court’s statement was factual not legal | Court: Veterans Court did engage in improper factfinding; appellate courts must not make initial factual findings—remand and caution to Veterans Court to avoid factfinding on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Meeks v. West, 216 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir.) (interpretation begins with plain meaning)
- Glover v. West, 185 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir.) (give effect to all words in statute/regulation)
- Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (U.S.) (expressions of congressional intent via inclusion/omission)
- Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (U.S.) (presumption from disparate statutory language)
- Hensley v. West, 212 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir.) (appellate courts should not make initial factfinding)
- Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir.) (court may review regulatory interpretation even if issue not raised below)
- Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir.) (precedent on relevance standard that panel declined to overrule)