16-60 885

CourtBoard of Veterans' Appeals
DecidedJanuary 10, 2018
Docket16-60 885
StatusUnpublished

This text of 16-60 885 (16-60 885) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Board of Veterans' Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
16-60 885, (bva 2018).

Opinion

Citation Nr: 1801833 Decision Date: 01/10/18 Archive Date: 01/23/18

DOCKET NO. 16-60 885 ) DATE ) )

On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Muskogee, Oklahoma

THE ISSUES

1. Entitlement to an effective date prior to September 15, 2009, for the grant of service connection for type II diabetes mellitus.

2. Entitlement to an effective date prior to September 15, 2009, for the grant of special monthly compensation based on loss of use of a creative organ.

REPRESENTATION

Veteran represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The Veteran

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

R. R. Watkins, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from June 1959 to October 1962, March 1964 to April 1968 and January 1972 to January 1976.

These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in February 2016 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma, which granted service connection for type II diabetes mellitus and special monthly compensation based on loss of use, effective September 15, 2009.

In October 2017, the Veteran testified at a Board videoconference before the undersigned. A transcript of the proceeding has been associated with the record.

This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2017). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2014).

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Appellant's claim for service connection for type II diabetes mellitus was received by the VA on September 15, 2009.

2. In a February 2016 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for type II diabetes mellitus and awarded special monthly compensation based on loss of use of a creative organ due to the type II diabetes mellitus, effective September 15, 2009.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for an effective date prior to September 15, 2009, for the grant of service connection for type II diabetes mellitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A, 5110(d), 7104 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.5, 3.152, 3.400(c)(2) (2017).

2. The criteria for an effective date prior to September 15, 2009, for the grant of special monthly compensation based on loss of use of a creative organ have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A, 5110(d), 7104 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.5, 3.152, 3.400(c)(2) (2017).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) and implementing regulations impose obligations on VA to provide claimants with notice and assistance in substantiating their claims. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2017). However, where service connection has been granted and an initial disability rating and effective date have been assigned, the typical service connection claim has been more than substantiated, it has been proven. In such cases, the intended purpose of the VCAA notice has been fulfilled and no additional notice is required as to downstream issues, including the effective date. Hartman v. Nicholson, 483 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Dunlap v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 112 (2007).

Here, the appeal arises from Veteran's disagreement with the effective dates assigned following the grants of benefits. The Veteran was provided notice and assistance in substantiating his claims. There has not been any prejudice as a result of any possible notice defects. No further notice or assistance is necessary.

Earlier Effective Date

The Veteran contends that he should be awarded effective dates prior to September 15, 2009, for the grants of service connection for type II diabetes mellitus and special monthly compensation based on loss of use of a creative organ. Specifically, he asserts that he is entitled to an effective date of June 24, 2004, the date of his first claim for VA benefits.

In general, the effective date of an award of pension, compensation, or DIC based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final disallowance, or a claim for increase will be the date of the receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

Additionally, when VA or an adjudicative body passes a liberalizing law and compensation is granted, a claimant may receive a retroactive effective date prior to the date he would be entitled under the above rules. 38 C.F.R. § 3.114 (2017). If a claim is reviewed at the request of a claimant more than one year after the effective date of a liberalizing law, benefits may be authorized for a period of one year prior to the date of the request. Id.

A "claim" is defined broadly to include a formal or informal communication, in writing, requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement to a benefit. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p) (2017); Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 34-35 (1998). Any communication indicating intent to apply for a benefit under the laws administered by the VA may be considered an informal claim provided it identifies, but not necessarily with specificity, the benefit sought. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) (prior to March 24, 2015). The date of an informal claim may be used as the effective date if a formal claim is filed within one year of that date. Id. To determine when a claim was received, the Board must review all communications in the claims file that may be construed as an application or claim. See Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 134 (1992).

With respect to earlier effective date claims for diseases presumed to be caused by herbicide agent's exposure, VA has issued special regulations. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.816 (2017); see also Nehmer v. Veterans Admin. of the Gov't of the U. S., 284 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2002), aff'd sub nom., Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans Admin., 32 F.Supp.2d 1175 (N.D. Cal. 1999) and 712 F.Supp. 1404 (N.D. Cal. 1989). A Nehmer class member is identified as a Vietnam Veteran who has a covered herbicide-related disease. 38 C.F.R. § 3.816 (b)(1)(i). The term "covered herbicide disease" includes type II diabetes mellitus. 38 C.F.R.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hartman v. Nicholson
483 F.3d 1311 (Federal Circuit, 2007)
Dale O. Dunlap v. R. James Nicholson
21 Vet. App. 112 (Veterans Claims, 2007)
Nehmer v. United States Veterans' Administration
712 F. Supp. 1404 (N.D. California, 1989)
Nehmer v. United States Veterans Administration
32 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (N.D. California, 1999)
Quarles v. Derwinski
3 Vet. App. 129 (Veterans Claims, 1992)
Brannon v. West
12 Vet. App. 32 (Veterans Claims, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16-60 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/16-60-885-bva-2018.