Wolfe v. McDonough
20-2317
| Fed. Cir. | Oct 26, 2021Background
- James Wolfe (USMC veteran) and LouAnn Wolfe lived together for ~10 years and legally married on February 4, 2010; James divorced a prior wife in May 2010 and died August 9, 2010.
- VA denied LouAnn Wolfe survivor benefits under 38 C.F.R. § 3.54(b)(2) because the couple had not been married for at least one year before the veteran’s death.
- The Board (May 2014) found the couple’s common-law marriage began only after the veteran’s prior marriage was dissolved, so she was not an eligible surviving spouse.
- In June 2016 Wolfe moved for Board reconsideration, submitting a December 2014 Oklahoma order vacating the prior divorce and alleging the veteran was fraudulently induced into the prior divorce.
- The Board Chairman denied reconsideration under 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000 because Wolfe did not show (a) an obvious error of fact or law preserved at the Board level, (b) new service department records, or (c) that an allowance of benefits was materially influenced by fraud.
- The Veterans Court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial because § 20.1000’s listed bases for reconsideration are the exclusive, reviewable circumstances; Wolfe appealed to the Federal Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000(c) unlawfully narrows 38 U.S.C. § 7103 by limiting fraud-based reconsideration to cases where benefits were allowed due to fraud | Wolfe: § 7103 requires correction of Board decisions affected by fraud in all instances; VA cannot limit reconsideration to allowances only | VA: § 7103 leaves a gap about "obvious errors" and the agency reasonably filled it by defining limited bases for reconsideration | Court: Agency gap-filling under Chevron is permissible; § 20.1000(c) validly interprets § 7103 and does not unlawfully narrow the statute |
| Whether § 20.1000 is arbitrary, capricious, or not pro-claimant because it does not allow reconsideration for fraud in denials | Wolfe: Limiting reconsideration to allowances is not claimant-friendly and is arbitrary | VA: Regulation is reasonable and consistent with pro-claimant policy overall; it provides specified rehearing routes including obvious errors and new records | Court: Regulation is reasonable and not arbitrary; veterans’ pro-claimant policy does not require reconsideration in every case |
Key Cases Cited
- Anania v. McDonough, 1 F.4th 1019 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (standard of review and authority to decide legal questions in Veterans Court appeals)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (agency gap-filling and deference to reasonable statutory interpretations)
- Gallegos v. Principi, 283 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (applying Chevron deference to VA regulatory interpretations)
- Sears v. Principi, 349 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (rejecting invalidation of reasonable agency regulations solely for not producing pro-claimant outcomes in every case)