Young v. McDonald
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17295
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- Young, a Vietnam-era Army combat engineer, filed a VA benefits claim in September 1984 describing symptoms as anxiety and “bad nerves.”
- The VA denied the claim for PTSD after a missed examination, and the first medical diagnosis of PTSD appeared March 10, 1989.
- The RO and Board denied the claim through 1991 due to lack of verified in-service stressors; Young did not pursue further VA review at that time.
- In May 1998 the RO reopened after service records showed a stressor, granting service connection with a 100% rating and an August 11, 1992 effective date.
- Young sought to reopen and argued for an earlier effective date back to September 7, 1984; the Board concluded entitlement arose on March 10, 1989.
- The Veterans Court affirmed, applying 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) requiring a medical diagnosis of PTSD to establish entitlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 3.304(f) controls entitlement date for PTSD and requires a medical diagnosis | Young: lay evidence suffices for entitlement date; diagnosis not required at earliest claim. | Young: regulation requires medical diagnosis to establish entitlement. | Entitlement arises only with a medical diagnosis; March 10, 1989 is correct. |
| Whether the 1993 regulation retroactively applied to 1984 claim | retroactivity would render earlier date if diagnosis existed earlier. | VA’s practice required PTSD diagnosis even in 1984; no retroactive change. | No retroactive error; regulation’s diagnostic requirement applied consistently. |
| Proper effective date framework for claims reopened with service records | earliest date of entitlement should be September 7, 1984. | date fixed by 3.156(c)(3) as later of the entitlement arose or VA receipt; here March 10, 1989. | Correct to use March 10, 1989 as the later date. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (lay evidence may establish a medical condition only in limited circumstances)
- Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (lay testimony may support later medical diagnosis; credibility matters)
- Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (CUE requires outcome-changing error; standard for retroactive analysis)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (Supreme Court 1994) (factors for retroactivity analysis)
- Princess Cruises, Inc. v. United States, 397 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (retroactivity factors framework applied to regulatory changes)