McTighe v. BrownMcTighe v. Brown
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Holdaway
The appellant, Wilma J. MeTighe, appeals a June 2, 1993, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) which determined that she was not entitled to an earlier effective date for an award of dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC). The Court will affirm the decision of the BVA.
*30BACKGROUND
The appellant is the widow of Walter T. Bryan, the veteran. On November 2, 1944, the veteran died on active duty during World War II. In May 1947, the appellant married Richard B. McTighe. That marriage terminated the DIC benefits that had been received by the appellant. That marriage ended in divorce in 1985.
In November 1987, the appellant telephoned the VA Regional Office (RO) and indicated her desire to file a claim for benefits. The appellant received a claims application form the following week. On December 11, 1987, the appellant went to the RO seeking assistance in filling out the application. The appellant claims that a veterans benefits counselor working at the RO informed her that her income was too great to receive benefits. As a result of this conversation, the appellant did not at that time submit an application for DIC benefits.
In June 1990, after reading an article in Modern MatüRIty Magazine, which stated that widows who remarried and later divorced were eligible for DIC benefits regardless of income, the appellant submitted an application for DIC benefits. In August 1990, the RO granted the appellant DIC benefits with an effective date of July 1,1990. In September 1990, the appellant submitted a Notice of Disagreement contending that she was entitled to DIC benefits retroactive to December 1987. In September 1991, she filed a VA Form 1-9 (Appeal to the Board).
In December 1991, the appellant and her daughter appeared and testified at a personal hearing. In her personal hearing testimony, the appellant admitted that the veterans benefits counselor probably did not understand that the veteran died during World War II almost 40 years prior to her appearance at the RO. In March 1992, the appellant’s attorney filed a brief. On June 2, 1998, the BVA determined that thé appellant was not entitled to an earlier effective date.
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to
The appellant bases her contention that she is entitled to an earlier effective date on the fact that she received erroneous information from a VA employee regarding her eligibility for DIC benefits. Although not articulated in terms of “estoppel,” the argument now advanced by the appellant seems to be, in part, based by implication on an estoppel theory. ‘Where this Court has previously considered estoppel claims, it has either decided the case on other grounds or rejected estoppel outright.” Harvey v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 416, 423 (1994). In Lozano v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 184, 185-86 (1991), relying upon OPM v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 110 S.Ct. 2465, 110 L.Ed.2d 387 (1990), the Court held that a clerical error could not be relied on to estop the VA from denying monetary benefits. Richmond held that the payment of government benéfíts must be authorized by statute; therefore, erroneous advice given by a government employee cannot be used to estop the government from denying benefits. Richmond, 496 U.S. at 424, 110 S.Ct. at 2471; see Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785, 788-90, 101 S.Ct. 1468, 1470-72, 67 L.Ed.2d 685 (1981). Richmond is dispositive of this case. The statute in this case specifically provides that the effective date is the date of application. Although the appellant may have received erroneous advice from the veterans benefits counselor at the RO, she is not entitled to an earlier effective date based on estoppel.
The main thrust of the appellant’s argument, although intermixed with an estoppel theory, is that her visit to the RO should be construed as an “informal claim” and that the VA breached its duty to assist. Section 3.155(a), of title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, defines the term “informal claim” as:
*31Any communication or action, indicating an intent to apply for . . . benefits under the laws administered by the [VA], from a claimant . . . may be considered an informal claim. Such informal claim must identify the benefit sought. Upon receipt of an informal claim, if a formal claim has not been filed, an application form will be forwarded to the claimant for execution. If received within 1 year from the date it was sent to the claimant, it will be considered filed as of the date of receipt of the informal claim.
Even if the appellant’s phone call and subsequent visit to the RO on December 11, 1987, could be construed as an informal claim, the VA had already complied with its obligation pursuant to
In addition, a “claim” must be well grounded before a duty to assist arises. Obviously, simply to state that one wishes to file a claim or that one has a claim falls short of being well grounded. “[T]he claimant has the burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief that the claim is well grounded in order for the RO to carry the claim to full adjudication.” Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 92 (1993) (emphasis added);
To the extent that the appellant asks for equitable relief, the Court draws her attention to
Finally, the Court notes that the appellant has requested attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Pursuant to
The June 2, 1993, decision of the Board is AFFIRMED, and the appellant’s application for attorney fees under the EAJA is DENIED.