200512-87606

CourtBoard of Veterans' Appeals
DecidedOctober 29, 2021
Docket200512-87606
StatusUnpublished

This text of 200512-87606 (200512-87606) 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
200512-87606, (bva 2021).

Opinion

Citation Nr: AXXXXXXXX Decision Date: 10/29/21 Archive Date: 10/29/21

DOCKET NO. 200512-87606 DATE: October 29, 2021

ORDER

Entitlement to an effective date prior to February 19, 2019 for service connection for coronary artery disease (CAD) is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran was a Nehmer class member.

2. The Veteran did not file a claim of entitlement to service connection for CAD prior to February 2019, and a claim of entitlement to service connection for CAD was never previously denied by VA.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

1. The criteria for an effective date prior to February 19, 2019 for the grant of service connection for CAD are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5101 (a), 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.400, 3.816.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from May 1962 to May 1967, including service in the Republic of Vietnam. The Veteran died in May 2021. The appellant is the Veteran's surviving spouse and has been substituted as the appellant.

The rating decision on appeal was issued in June 2019 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies.

In a May 2020 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) (NOD), the Veteran elected the Hearing option; therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the appellant or his or her representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a).

In March 2021, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a video conference hearing. A transcript of the hearing is of record.

Duties to Notify and Assist

With respect to the Veteran's claim herein, VA has met all statutory and regulatory notice and duty to assist provisions. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The Veteran has not advanced any procedural arguments in relation to VA's duty to notify and assist; therefore, the Board will proceed with appellate review. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

1. Entitlement to effective date earlier than February 19, 2019 for the grant of service connection for CAD

As an initial matter, and as briefly noted above, the Veteran passed away in May 2021, and the current appellant is the Veteran's wife. In cases where a Nehmer class member who is entitled to retroactive benefits pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.816(c)(1) through (c)(3) dies prior to receiving payment of such benefits, retroactive benefits may be paid to specified individuals, including the class member's spouse, regardless of current marital status. 38 C.F.R. § 3.816(f)(1)(i).

In light of the above, the Board will adjudicate the issue currently on appeal as a claim for retroactive benefits that the Veteran was entitled to at the time of his death pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.816, based on earlier claims for benefits for ischemic heart disease. As such, although the Veteran has passed away, the Board will analyze the current appeal under the subsections of 38 C.F.R. § 3.816 governing the award of earlier effective dates for service connection, and not the portions governing effective dates for DIC, to determine whether retroactive benefits may be awarded. 38 C.F.R. § 3.816(c), (d).

The Veteran was initially granted service connection in a June 2019 rating decision, effective February 19, 2019, the date of his initial claim for service connection for CAD. The appellant asserts that she is entitled to an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for the Veteran's CAD, status post-myocardial infarction with congestive heart failure. Specifically, in the March 2021 hearing, the Veteran asserted that the effective date should be the date of his 1985 claim for service connection for hypertension. Alternatively, the Veteran asserted that the effective date should be December 2005, the date the Veteran's medical records noting a diagnosis of coronary artery disease were received by the VA pursuant to Nehmer v. United States Veterans Administration, 712 F. Supp. 1404 (N.D. Cal., May 2, 1989).

Generally, the effective date of an award based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final adjudication or a claim for increase shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but not earlier than the date the claim was received. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a). If a claim for compensation is received within one year after separation from service, the effective date for an award of service connection is the day following separation from active service. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2).

A specific claim in the form prescribed by the Secretary of VA must be filed in order for benefits to be paid or furnished to any individual under the laws administered by VA. 38 U.S.C. § 5101(a)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a). For claims received on or after March 24, 2015, VA amended its regulations governing how to file a claim. The effect of the amendment was to standardize the process of filing claims, as well as the forms accepted, in order to increase the efficiency, accuracy, and timeliness of claims processing, and to eliminate the concept of informal claims. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.155; 79 Fed. Reg. 57660-01. However, prior to the effective date of the amendment, an informal claim was any communication or action, indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits under the laws administered by VA. The benefit sought must be identified, see Stewart v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 15, 18 (1997), but need not be specific, see Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 196, 199 (1992). See 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) (2012).

Some exceptions to 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 exist.

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

Related

William N. Clemons v. Eric K. Shinseki
23 Vet. App. 1 (Veterans Claims, 2009)
Nehmer v. United States Veterans' Administration
712 F. Supp. 1404 (N.D. California, 1989)
Scott v. McDonald
789 F.3d 1375 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
Servello v. Derwinski
3 Vet. App. 196 (Veterans Claims, 1992)
McCay v. Brown
9 Vet. App. 183 (Veterans Claims, 1996)
Stewart v. Brown
10 Vet. App. 15 (Veterans Claims, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
200512-87606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/200512-87606-bva-2021.